No, I wasn't asking intent, I was asking why something in the air falls down to the ground. Not why somebody put it in the air, not why we're talking about balls in the air, why it falls once it's up there. Intent isn't a magical thing that stops 'why' questions dead, it's a phenomenon that occurs just like gravity - and, by the way, intent can often be explained by science (social sciences and psychology, for example). The reason 'why' questions are tricky is because you can keep asking them - why, then, are bodies of mass attracted to each other? Because of this or that fundamental particle that does this or that with the other, but why does it do that? You can keep going, there's absolutely no limit, no final question, and introducing a God or some old dead guy's shitty pseudo-philosophical parables doesn't change that. If what you're trying to talk about are, specifically, questions of 'why' that regard the intent of conscious beings more universal than humans (ie. a god, however abstract or personal) as the full stop before which you can capitulate and be content that all questions on the matter are answered (and I think you are), then you're begging the question by implicitly assuming that there [i]is[/i] any intent to begin with - religion might be 'answering' those questions, but it's also the thing conjuring them up in the first place! This isn't the insightful recognition of a fundamental divide between faith and empiricism, it's an onanistic, self-serving and trivial line of bullshit. Religion doesn't answer 'why' questions, it answers 'why does God do that' ones.