Yazata:
I see you haven't yet worked up the courage to respond directly to what I wrote to you. So be it. I'm getting used to your avoiding what is inconvenient for your claims. I'm still disappointed, though.
All we have to do is ask 'why' about anything, ask 'why' again when we get an answer... and we will find that we are at the frontiers of human knowledge after only a few iterations. Pretty much all of our beliefs just kind float in the air like that.
"Why?" is a tricky question. The big "why" questions are the philosophical ones which, like a lot of questions in philosophy, are most likely unanswerable.
Science, in one sense, doesn't attempt to answer "why" questions; it answers "how" questions. How does the Sun make things hot? How can we account for the blueness of the sky? How does the Moon stay in orbit around the Earth? How can we send a spaceship to Mars? How can we prevent polio? How can we record large amounts of information in a small object? How does the human body digest food?
Lots of questions in science can be phrased as "why" questions, but the answers science provides are usually a series of "hows". Why is the sky blue? Well, light is refracted by air and different some colours are refracted more than others.
How this happens is explained by the theory of refraction, the wave model of light, Rayleigh scattering and other models.
The philosophical "why" question that goes with science's "how" answers is:
why are scientific models - especially mathematical ones - so successful in allowing us to explain the universe? Nobody knows the answer to that.
When when you talk about "iterating" through "why" questions on scientific topics, you're right that at some point you're going to hit a "science doesn't know the answer, yet" answer. As far as we can tell, the universe just is how it is. Maybe it is an accident that it is the way it is, at least in some respects. Or maybe not.
I think, perhaps, the point you're missing (or downplaying) is that, a lot of the time, it's not that important that our beliefs be
ultimately grounded, in the sense that we can chase an infinite number of "whys" to a final conclusion. Why shouldn't you stand in the rain? Because you'll get wet. Most of the time, to answer that question there's no need to understand how rain happens, how the molecular structure of water molecules arises, why there are some molecules rather than none, or why God would choose to create water.
Carl Sagan is famous for chanting his reverent "billions and billions" (as beautiful astronomical photos appeared on the screen and the music swelled) which expressed his own awe at the scale of the universe.
Interestingly, he became known for that phrase long before he ever used actually used it. He had the awe you mention, certainly, but people get things wrong and make stuff up. This one was intended as a sort of caricature, albeit one that Sagan himself embraced to some extent towards the end of his life.
But no matter how large the universe is, I doubt if Carl the astrophysicist ever felt much doubt about his principles of astrophysics.
He was a scientist working at the frontiers of scientific research, plus he was a bright guy. I'm have no doubt that he was well aware of the limits of astrophysics and, indeed, science more generally.
I think that you, Yazata, regularly underestimate the level to which clever scientists are aware of your Philosophy. Philosophy isn't exactly a closeted subject hidden from the world or restricted to a select group of initiates, you know.
Which would suggest that he probably thought that while he didn't know precisely what is happening on all those 'billions and billions' of exoplanets, he did expect that he knew the rules of the game that constrain all events that can possibly happen anywhere and anywhen.
Try asking any professional scientist whether he thinks he knows all the rules of the game blah blah blah. It sounds to me like you'll be surprised at the answer you'll get.
But it does seem to be inexcusable hubris to assume that reality can't behave in unexpected ways or that the mission of rational people must be to defeat any suggestion that it can.
Who are these people you say exhibit this form of hubris?
Certainly, none of the skeptics right here do, and they've all told you they don't.
This is your Big Lie again. Perhaps I should start keeping a tally, since you repeat it in almost every post.