“Even if they can't be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.” (Richard Dawkins). The quote represents the public policy of today's atheists. It is a call to encourage their followers to abandon any shame about their atheism and stand united to combat their common enemy, which is God. They strive to present believers' arguments in a superficial manner, as described by philosopher Jeremy Waldron regarding the positions expressed by atheists towards religious arguments: "Atheists often claim to know the nature of religious arguments, presenting them as a simple recipe from God, backed by the threat of hellfire, and derived from general or special revelation. They compare it with the intricate complexity of philosophical arguments such as those by Rawls or Dawkins. With this image in mind, they believe that it is evident that religious arguments should be excluded from public life... However, scholars recognize that this is a distorted portrayal of the matter."                                  (Edward Feser,2010, p. 53) 
In this article, we attempt to present one of these arguments known as the Inductive Proof, based on the calculation of probability value, which is considered a valid proof in all scientific institutes and universities. In every phenomenon or scientific discovery, scientists follow a method and approach to prove their scientific theories, consisting of three main steps, namely:
1. Observing a certain correlation among various phenomena and occurrences.
2. After observing and gathering the previous data, a valid hypothesis to explain and interpret the reason for the existence and occurrence of these matters is formulated.
3. Verifying the validity of the hypothesis established in the second step by investigating the possibility of these phenomena whether they appear or not. If the hypothesis states that the cause for the appearance of these phenomena and occurrences is a specific factor, its validity can be confirmed by researching the possibility of these phenomena happening without the cause specified in the hypothesis. If it is found that it is difficult to be achieved without it, the validity of the theory becomes evident. The weaker the probability of these phenomena occurring without the cause identified by our theory, such as when the probability does not exceed one percent, the more our knowledge confirms that the cause specified by the theory is the true cause until we reach complete certainty in that regard.
This is the method scientists use to prove any scientific fact, but it is also the method each one of us uses in our daily lives. For example, if you receive a handwritten letter and you know it's from your brother and not someone else, you have discovered that using the advanced method with its three steps. In reality, you have applied the same approach followed by scientists in discovering the truths of things. In the first step, you encounter several phenomena, such as the letter bearing your brother's name, being written in his handwriting, and following his usual style. Moreover, it even contains the same spelling and grammatical mistakes he typically makes and mentions secrets and issues known only to him. After gathering these phenomena, in the second step, you establish a valid hypothesis to explain them, which is that the letter is from your brother. If it is indeed from him, it is natural for it to contain all the data and phenomena that observed in the first step.
In the third step, you ask yourself the following question: If this letter is not from my brother, what are the chances that all those observed data from the first step would be present in it? This probability requires a large set of assumptions because, in order for us to obtain all that data, we must assume the existence of another person who shares the same name as the brother, writes in an identical style to him, including the same habitual errors, and possesses the same knowledge about me that only he would know. The possibility of another person writing the letter relies on a significant number of coincidences, making the likelihood of someone else being the author of the letter extremely low.
The natural stance is to disregard this weak possibility and rely on the first hypothesis that states ‘the brother is the author’. As the number of coincidences increases in the alternative possibility, the probability weakens and its scientific value diminishes to a point where it cannot be upheld due to its inherent weakness compared to the other probability. Thus, the general scientific method of inductive reasoning has been understood based on probability calculation, and it can be applied to the argument of proving the existence of a Creator by following the three previous steps.
The first step: Observing a large set of regular and recurring phenomena, all of which contribute to meeting the needs of humans on this Earth and facilitating their lives. If any of these phenomena were to disappear, life on this Earth would be impossible. Here are some of these phenomena: The Earth receives an amount of heat from the sun that is sufficient to provide warmth for the creation of life and to satisfy the heat needs of living organisms, neither more nor less. It has been scientifically observed that the distance between the Earth and the sun is perfectly aligned with the amount of heat required for life on this Earth. If it were twice the current distance, the heat necessary for life would not exist, and if it were half the current distance, the heat would be doubled to a level that living organisms cannot tolerate. Furthermore, we also observe that the proportion of oxygen in the air is perfectly aligned with the needs of living organisms. Approximately 80% of the oxygen is trapped in the Earth's crust and oceans due to its chemical affinity with the Earth's components and water. However, despite this, approximately 21% of oxygen remains freely available in the air, which is the amount required by living organisms for respiration, neither more nor less. If the proportion of oxygen were higher, it would lead to massive and rapid wildfires. If it were lower, life would be unsustainable, and fire would not be easily accessible. However, its presence in this proportion, mixed with other gases, specifically nitrogen in the air, allows it to be utilized without harm. Nitrogen, being a heavier gas, when combined with oxygen in the air, moderates its level to a suitable extent for the respiration of living organisms and prevents the rapid spread of fires. Scientists have observed that the absolute proportion of oxygen in the air, at 21%, perfectly corresponds to the amount of nitrogen present, which is 78%. If the proportion of oxygen increased or the proportion of nitrogen decreased, the appropriate mixture and the suitable moderation of oxygen would not be achieved. The process of mutual benefit between plants and animals where the plants produce sufficient oxygen to sustain other living organisms by absorbing the carbon dioxide released by humans and other animal species. The plants absorb carbon dioxide and separate oxygen from it, releasing it back into the air for the benefit of humans and other animals. Without this process, human life would be impossible.
Furthermore, the same quantity of air present on planet Earth is perfectly aligned with the existence and sustenance of human life. If the proportion of air on the planet were to increase, it would cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, which would make life impossible. Conversely, if the proportion of air on the planet were to decrease, it would weaken the atmosphere and allow the entry of meteors, posing a threat to life. However, the Earth's crust, which absorbs carbon dioxide and oxygen, is made to a specific thickness that does not allow for the absorption of all the oxygen and carbon dioxide. Scientists state that if the Earth's crust were slightly thicker, it would absorb these gases and prevent life on Earth. Similarly, millions of other cosmic phenomena are interconnected in their purpose of supporting the existence of a specific organism, which is humans. Allah says in the Quran: "Do you not see that Allah has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth and amply bestowed upon you His favors, [both] apparent and unapparent?" (Surah Luqman, 31:20)
The second step: The harmony among millions of phenomena, all of which serve humanity, can be explained by a single hypothesis: that there is a wise Creator for this universe who intended to provide everything on this Earth that human beings need in their lives.
The third step: If the hypothesis of existing a wise Creator is not true, what is the likelihood that all these natural phenomena exist without a purpose? It is evident that the possibility of all these phenomena existing without a purpose implies assuming a vast amount of coincidence. The existence of the appropriate amount of heat, air, oxygen, and others, all being a result of coincidences. It happened by chance that the right amount of oxygen remained in the air for human life, and it happened by chance that the Earth's crust is at a certain thickness to prevent the complete absorption of oxygen in the atmosphere and leave a specific proportion for breathing. It happened by chance again that the proportion of nitrogen is sufficient to moderate the oxygen, and so on for billions of coincidences. It is clear that the possibility of all these phenomena being coincidences is an extremely weak possibility and cannot be relied upon by a rational mind.
So, if you consider the possibility that the message is from someone other than your brother as trivial and insignificant, based on just a coincidence of four or five occurrences, then what about the probability of the existence of these phenomena with such harmony and consistency relying on billions of coincidences? 
Thus, we arrive at the decisive conclusion that the universe has a wise and creative God, based on the discovery of the coordination and harmony among cosmic phenomena, all of which contribute to the existence of humans and facilitate their lives.
Many scientists have acknowledged this reality some of them. Michael Denton, in his book ‘The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence’ on page (222) says: "The evidence increasingly points to a natural system that is uniquely suited and rigged for life on Earth, and especially for us, upright, human beings. This is a perspective that does not prove the traditional religious and biblical framework, but it is entirely compatible with it."
Some atheist scientists have also acknowledged that, including Stephen Hawking, the theoretical and cosmological physicist and Director of Research at the Center for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge. He says, ‘The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.'  (As cited in Luke. A. Barnes:2015)