“…that’s essentially the “I know you are, but what am I?” argument…”
Excuse me? What in God’s name are you referring to? I said nothing about what I am (other than not a scientist) nor about what you are.
“…creationists have been unsuccessfully throwing around…”
Creationists? Creationism? Who the fuck mentioned either of those? I didn’t dispute the scientific version of the life of the universe, past or present. I only disputed whether that description contains (in any mainstream version) any mention one way or the other of “caring”, “intelligence”, or even “extra-terrestrial” intelligent beings.
“…any scientist worth their salt would say…“this is the most likely outcome or truth as far as we can tell.””
Granted; only a moron or someone disingenuous would posit otherwise. So I challenge you again, where is the scientist who will say (as you did in your original post)
“…there was most likely and quite possibly will be in the future, a very long period when caring didn’t exist and won’t exist because there were no and will be no beings in it capable of caring.”
and what is her experimental, observational, scientific evidence? Hell, I’d even settle for a theoretical framework* she thought justified such a claim. In my experience, scientists are happy to speculate on whether computers based on silicon microcircuits can achieve intelligence [consciousness (however that is defined), self-awareness, …] never mind the myriad possibilities for other arrangements of atoms and molecules over the vast space and time dimensions of (our current understanding of) the universe.
*You may want to look at Drake’s equation. Basically, this is scientists trying out a theoretical framework to estimate the probability of extra-terrestrial intelligence. Far from using it to postulate its non-existence, it has mostly been used to argue that “we are (likely) not alone” although I believe the consensus is the parameters are in no way well enough known to draw a firm conclusion one way or the other.
