If someone tells you that when you no longer exist you experience “blankness” or a void you think about it. Then after thinking about it for a moment, you realize that this statement is false. Because the empty set contains no elements. So if nothing exists, then there is nothing there to observe the set. It follows that you would always be an observer of some object. I'm going to informally call this the “fundamental axiom” just for now.

If you are reading this, then I'm sure we can both agree that you are existing in a universe that is finely tuned for life, and you can trace your existence back through a continuous set of events we call natural history. To the novice observer, they might conclude that the reason why this history and the set of fine tuned laws exists is that they were brought upon by some sort of intelligent designer and that we exist for a reason. But a more astute observer, who accepts the above axiom as truth will conclude that there is nothing special about our universe. If the laws deviated by only small amounts or if our planet had no water on it, then life would not have developed, and there would be no observer to ask the question. This is called the Arthroscopic Principle. Which I believe to be a wrongly named so; since it has nothing to do with being human, but has everything to do with being a generalized observer.

This is how far I find most physicists and philosophers accept their existence. And so would I if it were not for one other question.

(continuted in next comment)