I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

@Sheldon

Among creationists maybe, but certainly not among scientists. The term remains a metaphor used to describe the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged. So what? The universe is almost entirely hostile to life, you don't seem to be reading anything into that, could your bias be more obvious.

My 'bias' is the result of 'the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged'. The best evidence the universe wasn't intentionally caused would be our non-existence. Would it be more difficult for mindless natural forces to cause a lifeless universe? Not at all folks in charge of the virtual universe not the slightest tweak here or there causes a life prohibiting universe. As a thought experiment would you think that if mindless natural forces came into existence somehow it wouldn't be surprising if they caused a universe with laws of physics, gravity, stars, planets, solar systems, with the physics that would cause supernovas to produce the exotic matter necessary for life to exist? Would you expect mindless natural forces to cause a universe chalk full of mathematical equations that describe the universe?


Is E=MC^2 a metaphor for the relationship between energy and matter? 

Wouldn't it surprise you in the least bit if the laws of physics written into the fabric of spacetime dictate that stars going supernova create the very matter necessary for planets and humans to exist? Why would those 'laws' be written into the fabric of the universe by forces that didn't care if life existed. On the other hand if the laws were intentionally written into the fabric of space for the purpose of causing life then its not as surprising is it? Scientists act as if the fine-tuning of this universe is evidence of an infinitude of universes. Would you think to yourself (all alone in your thoughts) if mindless lifeless forces came into existence somehow it wouldn't surprise me if they stumbled upon the formula to accidentally cause something unlike itself to exist...life and mind.

You have cited only one person, and even your example does not believe a deity exists, so that's a bit of comedy gold right there. And as I evidenced earlier, atheism rises sharply among scientists, and is almost universal among elite scientists, like The National Academy of Science, where 93% are atheists and agnostics. Are you saying they are not best placed to know if the scientific evidence indicates the universe was fine tuned by a creator deity? Seriously you ought to have the integrity to admit at least to yourself, when your arguments are so absurd they are comedic.

They don't dispute the universe is fine-tuned for life; they replace a Creator with an infinitude of universes of varying properties. As part of the theory they state other universes can't be detected. A lot of atheists I run into seem to loathe the multiverse hypothesis as unnecessary claptrap because they deny the universe is fine-tuned for life. I note atheists can spot a God in the gaps argument a mile away but are totally oblivious to naturalism in the gaps arguments. Multiverse is the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps hypothesis. 

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Lee Smolin, Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Martin Rees. Part of the reason for multiverse is the unlikelihood of one universe having properties for life. That would leave intent and design as the cause. 

I took Hawkings name off because it causes some people to have intense heart burn.

No it doesn't, that's a lie. 
Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Its the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a Creator of the universe. What does that leave to cause a universe to exist? I can say I lack belief in the ability of mindless lifeless forces to unwittingly cause a universe with all the properties and conditions necessary to cause life to exist*? Then claim the burden of proof rests solely with atheists? Are you an A-naturalist as well as an A-theist? 

So called weak atheists who lack belief in the existence of God, don't deny or dispute God exists, they simply lack that belief. If people who call themselves atheists don't deny God exists why should theists? 

*Which is actually a reasonable belief. 

That just looks like subjective bias to me, since I have no other universes to compare this one to, I can't say this one is "fortuitous". However heads coming up instead of tails in a coin toss can be perceived as fortuitous, this does not suggest intent or design behind the result.

Its certainly fortuitous to humans that mother nature provided all the things necessary for life. Natural forces we know of can't plan to intend anything to happen. They don't have any say so in what they do or what effect it causes. Its the opposite of intelligent beings such as humans that can. As intelligent beings we decided to cause a virtual universe to exist. Mindless natural forces didn't have any choice in the matter. They had to cause spacetime to exist. They didn't want to cause the conditions for life...they had to.

Suppose tomorrow some startling new evidence comes forth and the majority of scientists conclude the universe was intentionally caused to exist. They don't say who or what, just that it was intentionally caused. Would that be a horrible day for you? Would you walk around in a haze for days on end? Can you deny its possible our existence was intentionally caused knowing in a few dozen years we maybe able to cause virtual people to exist in a virtual universe. No doubt some of the virtual people will believe there existence was intentionally caused. Would they be wrong?