No answers or false answers?

Human understanding is shaped and constrained by perception, language, and intuition, all evolved for survival rather than comprehension of cosmic truth. We expect causes, beginnings, and goals because our lives follow that pattern, yet those expectations may be meaningless when applied to the universe itself. The fact that humans struggle to frame coherent questions about ultimate existence does not justify inventing answers that feel emotionally complete. Some aspects of reality may lie beyond our capacity to conceptualise, let alone explain, and accepting this possibility is not despair but maturity. Religion cannot tolerate such uncertainty because it erodes authority. A system built on obedience depends on answers, even false ones, to maintain control. Science, by contrast, remains open-ended and self-correcting. It advances without promising final revelation. There may never be an ultimate explanation for why existence exists at all, and that possibility must be faced rather than hidden. The search for understanding becomes meaningful in itself, not because it offers completion, but because it refuses to lie.