I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

Argumentum ad Wikipedia Copy-N-Pasta? Seriously dude, learn how to do basic attribution.

The Wikipedia article (<--- See? Like that!) goes on to debunk everything that you stated here. Here's a selection of fun quotes for you (emphasis mine):

"Because physicists have not developed an empirically successful theory of quantum gravity, there is no known way to combine quantum mechanics, on which the standard model depends, and general relativity. Without knowledge of this more complete theory suspected to underlie the standard model, it is impossible to definitively count the number of truly independent physical constants. In some candidate theories, the number of independent physical constants may be as small as one."

"Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires". He also said that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently"."

"Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the existence of multiple universes introducing a survivorship bias under the anthropic principle."

"Belief in the fine-tuned universe led to the expectation that the Large Hadron Collider would produce evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, but by 2012 it had not produced evidence for supersymmetry at the energy scales it was able to probe."

Most scientists are philosophically committed to naturalist explanations.

That's a pretty dubious claim, we know that natural phenomena exist, and are possible, and everything science has helped us understand about the universe involves natural phenomena, whereas there is absolutely no empirical or objective evidence or data for anything supernatural for science to examine? Many of the claims are unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. Science cannot study anything that provides no data to examine, and of course this would be true of all non-existent things. it is risible to lie that this represents bias on the part of the methods of science. 

Is this where you've arrived at, risible global conspiracy theories about science, dear oh dear.