The Shining Source

The question is one of mister Hawking who said, "How or why were the laws and inital state of the universe chosen?"

Einstein has a famous quote, "God does not play dice!" but he himself had a hard time accepting this as his studies disproved this quote mathematically.

The answers are out there, but you're right in the fact we as an unevolved race cannot intrepret such powerful thoughts. Hawking also said, "Our goal is to achieve a complete understanding of our surroundings." which could be the purpose of evolution in which the meaning of life will become comprehendable as we evolve. Lets see if anyone can argue this with sources. :-D

I don't think its humanly possible to understand the universe. I dont feel like find sources lol so ill quote myself "Humans will never understand everything because we're just oo damn stupid"

I think one of the reasons we have so much trouble in identifying how the universe works or how it was created is because we aren't always completely aware of how the human body perceives things.
It's like the question of whether "nothingness" can really exist. I might say that even vaccum isn't really "nothing" because it's black and it can have dimensions. But this is because the human body perceives absence of matter/energy as being black, implying that it is something, when, at a physical level, it really is nothing.

I really don't understand what physicists mean when they speak of space as being something, or being bentable, or tearable, or when they consider a 4th, 5th...11th dimension.

Thats because the people who usually talk about it are morons, but the dimensions are comprehendable.

"nothingness" was disproven by Einstein, space is filled with a substance called "ether" which allows the travel of light particles.

I wouldn't say that Einstein disproved "nothingness", i would say instead that he produced a theory that conveniently eliminates the possibility of "nothingness". What about the absence of ether? What is ether composed of? Is it composed of particles? What about the gaps between these particles, what are they composed of? Is the existence of ether verifiable in lab? I don't know, it seems like we're running a loop here.
I think physicists would save themselves alot of trouble if they adopted the view that vaccum really is nothing, and that the body perceives nothing as something.

Eliminates the possibility and disproving are the same thing in my mind. If you have a line 10cm long no matter how accurate the measurement weather its 7cm or 7 * 10^-1000000 its still on the line. "Ether" works much the same way in the fact no matter how much you break it down its still "Ether". The only way to answer your question is to read a book by Hawking on it.

You know, there's a problem with irrefutable theories. The theory of ether is irrefutable, in the sense that i can't come up with a situation, hypothetical or not,  where ether is not present. These theories, i won't say they're incorrect, but they are usually meaningless, since they can't be tested.
Eliminating the possibility and disproving is not the same thing. I think proving requires actual testing, and since ether can't be tested, it doesn't disprove anything. It's just a theory that elminates the possibility of nothingness, but unless the theory is itself proven, nothing that follows from the theory is proven either.
A good example of irrefutable theories are religions. Since they rely on the existence of god, which we can't disprove.
The theory of "ether" borders on "religiondom"...

Actually, the whole ether theory has been overthrown over 50 years ago, if I recall correctly .

The "Ether" theory was not overthrown its still widely accepted. And Job, I'm not trying to start a flam here so unless you have sources you're just repeating yourself...