[Sabertooth]

If there is no way to obtain any empirical evidence that backs up such speculations I don't see their merit.

There's more to life than science. How would you prove "love," scientifically?

Yet, there's something to be said for it.

Therefore one speculation is as good as any other to avoid admitting that one simply does not know.

Is all knowledge scientific?

Should a truth be ignored, simply because it might elude the grasp of science?

[BMCDA]

Love is a process in our brain. It is mostly a product of our unconscious self though it can be influenced by our conscious self. It can be shown that this feeling (as well as any other) is connected to the brain. IMO it is an evolutionary trait that ensures that individuals care for their peers - the more you love someone the more you care for that person. Animals who care for each other have a better survival chance than those that don't. The same behaviour can also be observed in some animals especially in primates.

Is all knowledge scientific?

Maybe not in a strict sense but knowledge is gathered empirically, thus everything we know is permanently tested by reality. Further you have to determine what is true but how do you accomplish this if there is no compelling evidence that backs it up. Of course it may be true that a deity (maybe even the Christian God) was the cause for the big-bang but I've seen no evidence that confirms this and you even said in an earlier post that it is practically impossible to obtain such evidence. It may also be true that a teapot shaped asteroid circles Epsilon Eridani but there is no evidence that confirms this.