Y'know, I think I got lost on who's arguing what. But I'll respond to Enzo, since I *think* I get the gist of his post...
Enzo wrote:Science is an approach, religion is an assertion. It becomes science when it becomes testable, whether you have done the test or not. No test, no evidence. Is why testable?
Yes, it is. We do not have the means to test it, but we constantly ask how things come to be. If we find the Origin Factor (in the far future), then it will be science to say Why. If a God is proven to exist, then we can show that this god guy had a reason to create the universe. If no God exists, and we show that it was random chance, we can probably come up with the figures (with enough time) to show how they came together.
Just because we can't answer the "how" question presently doesn't mean we never cam.
When we ask why there is a rock on the ground, we can answer it with "it fell from up on the cliff." There is no implication of purpose. The "why" of the universe or our existence or other philosophical nonsense implies a purpose. The answer to why am I here is not that the bus dropped me off here, or that my parents bred, or that evolution finally came to its finest flower. The answer to that question is some sort of purpose from above. No reason to think that even exists.
I agree with the last sentence. No reason to think that an Omnipotent force exists (if that's what you meant).
But I still think "why" is answerable, just not presently. Just because we don't have the means today, doesn't mean we can't develop it in the far future.