Let me start with what you provided me with, last. I'll maybe come back to what else you said, later.

As I perceive this debate, both discussants are "believers". Carrol believes that it has "not yet" been found out how the universe could have come into being, and he cites different models that could potentially be used to eventually reach a conclusion. In doing so, he argues, as all scientists argue, that it is "not yet" known, but may eventually be known. But since science, according to its own discipline, only ever knows exactly what it knows at present, and since the position is accepted that present knowledge will be superseded by future knowledge - i.e. is and should be falsifiable - science cannot dispose of final knowledge.

He could have to ask himself "What if, through scientific work, it were discovered what caused the universe to come into being?" Let us further assume that there is an answer to this question that is universally accepted by the scientific community. But what about the rest of the people? The scientific community would have to make the riddle of the existence of the universe generally comprehensible in order to convince everyone else that it had been solved. Since scientists make up a comparatively small proportion of the human community, they could say "It is so because we have found it out and you must now simply trust us". Well, what then would be the consequence of this discovery? Would people then have a doctrine for their practical life that is different from the given one (such as the Ten Commandments)? Would they have a spiritual awakening? Would humanity all at once have certainty in moral and consequent practical matters of daily life?

This scenario, however, is not very likely. For within the scientific community, different theories prevail that contradict each other. They also overlap and complement each other in parts, but there is no general consensus and certainly no proven hypothesis in this area. If a certain scientific group wanted to work towards establishing an all-unifying theory, they would still be faced with the task of having to explain this to all of humanity. Not only does this seem unlikely, it would not be desirable. Because, in the face of people's differences, such differences would only cease to exist if they were forced to believe in something they do not find believable.

I think the debates among cosmology scientists are generally no different from those among the erstwhile theologians and philosophers from which science itself emerged.
Rather, it seems that the scientific field has scattered into so many fragments that, due to this fact, one can rather speak of a regress, since the countless disciplines are hardly capable of a common - mutually understandable - language any more.

But the problem with statements of "we don't know" or "we don't know yet" is, in my view, very underestimated. It is rejected by people to stand on an "I don't know" or "I don't know yet" position. The way I see it, man WANTS to believe something.
But since people know very well from each other that everyone is fallible, mistakable, deceivable, seducible, etc., you need something that they put outside of humanity. And not only outside humanity but also outside what we call the universe or the observable realm of it.

Just imagine you'd be born into a society which has as a believe-system the "We don't know yet"-doctrine. What are you supposed to do with it? The question then logically must be "But what DO we know so far?"

That already distracts from who is "we" and since "we" know from each other that we are fallible, we need something other, less familiar, even no familiar at all, which is God.

John Hick: a necessary being is an eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible being.

A Christian might say: "I have faith in God. But if I wouldn't have had faith, I might find it necessarry to invent God."

Now, this indeed fantastic entity needs to be thought of in order to see that a human being wants something "out of and beyond himself" to even grasp towards what and which he can orientate himself, since orientation in questions of conscience cannot be provided by Joe or Patricia or Mr. Burns or Mrs. Miller during sole contemplation. The act of praying differs from the act of washing the dishes or explaining the function of a machine or the solar system.

I don't start a prayer by saying: "Dear all unifying theory, I need guidance to overcome my insecurities. Please help me to find an answer how I shall decide upon my current conflict." Also, you, being alone with you cannot consult yourself without finding it ridiculous, otherwise you'd start a prayer with "Dear honored me, ..." You need to personify it, yet take it not too literally.

The official nature of "praying" differs from mere self talk. It is more structured, it has a beginning, a middle and an end. While if you just try to think through your problems, you'll be distracted by all kinds of interfering thoughts and you may come out of your thinking time more confused than entering into it. But the act of consulting through prayer first, the afterthoughts might get supported by this very prayer.

When Carrol says that it is about observable space and that the universe itself may not obey the physical laws discovered by humans and is therefore something completely different from what we can recognise, he is not as far away from the concept of God as he might think. It seems that he refuses to personify it (in the way I tried to express). If I understood him correctly, which I cannot say for sure because he (both) often spoke too quickly for me and I am German. Even though my English is quite good.

Now, given that it is stated that "we solved the mystery of life" (and the universe) I would assume that people would lose interest in it. If a mystery is solved, like I said, it loses all its fascination and if one becomes really upset of having been taken away the riddle and be given it a final answer, he might want to lynch you. In the same way, if one is bored he finds that it is a very undesirable state of being. Man indeed does not appreciate to be given all answers, he wants to have an appropriate space to interpret himself, which, obviously, the Christian and other religions provide people with (biblical, religious stories and scripts).

So, even within Christianity, the pastor would not and should not say in church: "We know for sure that God exists and we've got proof." He instead says: "We have faith in Him and we trust Him." The certainty lays in the uncertainty. Not the certainty lays in certainty.

That is why I appreciate very much that you took the riddle into account.