The anthropic principle proves that God exists

There is now strong irrefutable scientific evidence that God exists. It's called "the anthropic principle".

The laws of nature that govern the universe and the structure of the universe must be extremely precisely adjusted to make life possible.
So terribly accurate that it is impossible to say that the universe was formed by pure chance, by an unguided explosion. Scientists are discovering more and more values that must be extremely precisely adjusted to make life possible in the universe.

In 1961, only two of these constants were known, the most critical of which was the ratio of gravity to electromagnetic force. If this varies by just 1 part in 10^40 (that's 10 to the power of 40, that's a 1 with 40 zeros, that's 10,000 trillion trillion trillion) then no life is possible.
Today, the number of values of cosmic constants that have been finely tuned to make life (any form of life) possible stands at 38. Of these, the most critical is space energy density. Its value cannot vary more than 1 part in 10^120, because then the planets and stars that are necessary for life are no longer possible.

To get some idea of the size of these numbers, something about the universe that we can observe.
It has a diameter of about 156 billion light years, which is about 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km. It contains approximately 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, spread over some 80 billion galaxies. The total number of atoms in it is estimated at 10^80.

The chance for our universe to become what it has become, so that life can exist in it, is about 1 in 10^173.

For more information on that subject, see here: http://www.reasons.org/scientists/anthropic-principle-precise-plan-humanity

A mathematician, Borel, has calculated that an event that has a chance of happening of no more than 1 in 10^50 will never happen, regardless of the amount of time available, and regardless of the number of attempts.
As everyone can see, the chances that the universe is aligned by chance in such a way that life is possible are many times smaller than that lower limit of 1 in 10^50.

Regarding this anthropic principle, one of the greatest scientists Stephen Hawking wrote: " Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle.”
"A Brief History of Time", by Stephen Hawking, chapter 8, page 139.

“ It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Ibid page 140

So there it is, the scientific proof that God exists.

Here are some quotes from scientists which indicate the extent to which the anthropic principle is accepted among scientists:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural'😉 plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall... be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the design argument of Paley - updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Looks like I reached the limit. Look here for more:
https://sites.google.com/view/anthropic-principle/home

Even brilliant scientists are human and subject to confirmation bias.

They see what they want and expect to see.

(Hawking was an atheist, btw)

@bigdogg said
Even brilliant scientists are human and subject to confirmation bias.

They see what they want and expect to see.

(Hawking was an atheist, btw)

@carnivorum said
The laws of nature that govern the universe and the structure of the universe must be extremely precisely adjusted to make life possible.
So terribly accurate that it is impossible to say that the universe was formed by pure chance, by an unguided explosion.

@vivify said
The entire continually expanding 93 billion-diameter universe was specifically designed to make life possible?

All of it?

Including the asteroids that killed the dinosaurs?

Including the thousands of planets, dwarf planets, exo-planets and moons that are each far too extreme to harbor life as we know it?

If the universe is fined-tuned for life why would liv ...[text shortened]... case for earth specifically being "create" for life, fine. But the whole universe? That's absurd.

@carnivorum said
It is not absurd to all those scientists I quoted.

@vivify said
You quoted opinions and then stated:

"So there it is, the scientific proof that God exists."

Thinking opinions amount to scientific evidence highlights quite well your lack of understanding about what science actually is.

I can post just as many respected figures who say the opposite of what you posted....including Stephen Hawking, who said "science makes God unnecessary".

Would that make you change your mind? Of course not. Confirmation bias is not science.

The absolute proof that God exists will come when he puts on the final show for us. Come one, come all, and it's free admission—heaven or hell.

@carnivorum said
It is not the opinions that are the proof, it is the anthropic principle which is the proof.

The opinions are only there to prove that the anthropic principle is real, and to show that quite a few scientist hold that you can see it as a proof for God.

@carnivorum said
It is not absurd to all those scientists I quoted.

The fine tuning of the universe is a simple fact.

The chances that the universe would make life possible are so astronomically absurdly small, that it is an enormous miracle that we exist.

And that's a fact.

@vivify said
"It is not the opinions that are the proof"

followed by:

"The opinions are only there to prove"

Your out of your depth here. You're just not equipped for scientific debates.

@kellyjay said
opinions are brought about by evidential inquiry coming up with the best explanations for what it is we are examining.

@vivify said
That would be a hypothesis. Not an opinion.

Opinions cannot be tested and therefore aren't scientific.

Your kind just keeps proving you don't know what science is.

@kellyjay said
You can have an opinion about a hypothesis, even theories

The methods and theories used to establish the size of the universe, as well as to understand the universe's age and structure, are all grounded in assumptions. These assumptions are not just casual guesses but are based on a collection of established scientific principles, observations, and theories that have been rigorously tested and refined over centuries. Here's a closer look at the foundational assumptions underlying these methods:

1. Assumption of a Universe Expanding at a Constant Rate: The assumption that the universe has been expanding at a constant rate, known as the Hubble Constant, is fundamental to estimating its size. This assumption is based on the observation of the redshift of distant galaxies, which indicates that they are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. The constant rate of expansion is a key component of the Big Bang theory and has been supported by numerous observations and measurements.

2. Assumption of a Uniform Expansion: The method of using the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation to estimate the universe's size assumes that the expansion of the universe is uniform across all directions. This assumption is crucial because it allows astronomers to make inferences about the universe's overall size based on the CMB radiation observed from all directions.

3. Assumption of Gravitational Forces: The use of gravitational lenses and the distribution of galaxy clusters to estimate the size of the universe assumes that the universe is influenced by gravitational forces. This assumption is based on the fundamental laws of physics, including Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of general relativity.

4. Assumption of the Existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The inclusion of dark matter and dark energy in the calculations of the universe's size is based on the assumption that these components play a significant role in the universe's structure and expansion. These assumptions are supported by observational evidence, such as the gravitational effects of dark matter on the motion of visible matter and the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion attributed to dark energy.

5. Assumption of a Homogeneous and Isotropic Universe: The method of observing supernovae to estimate the universe's size assumes that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale. This assumption allows astronomers to use the observed light from supernovae to infer the universe's size by comparing it to the known distances to these supernovae.

6. Assumption of a Stable Expansion Rate: The calculation of the universe's size based on the expansion of the universe assumes that this expansion rate is stable. This assumption is based on the observation that the rate of expansion appears to be constant over cosmic time scales, as indicated by the redshift of distant galaxies and the CMB radiation.

These assumptions are not arbitrary but are the result of centuries of scientific inquiry and observation. They are the bedrock upon which our understanding of the universe is built. However, it's important to recognize that science is an ongoing process of discovery and refinement. As new observations and technologies emerge, these assumptions may be revised or replaced, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge.