Is Modern Science Based On Verifiable Evidence?

Modern mathematicians in general agree any number larger than 10 to the power of 70 represents zero possibility. This general mathematical consensus is based partially on the fact that the estimated number of atoms in the entire known universe is 10 to the 70th power. According to internationally respected physicist Paul Davies, "there is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. . .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." According to British mathematician Roger Penrose, the odds of the universe existing by non-designed random processes is 10 to the power of 10,123 against.

To illustrate how irrationally impossible this is, 10 to the 123rd power is 1 followed by 123 zeros, a number thought to be far greater than all of the neutrons, protons, quarks, leptons and other atomic particles in the known universe (10 to 82 power). But the number calculated by Penrose, being 1 followed by 10123 zeros, is unimaginably larger than this. What evidence do Neil DeGrasse Tyson and other scientists have, who are betting against the unimaginably overwhelming mathematical odds against the universe being a result of "random", "unguided", "natural" "processes"? Isn't science supposed to be based on verifiable evidence? What evidence do they have and, what testable method are they using to verify it?

Richard, this has nothing do with fallacies. But I will entertain this question because this is a good lesson in fallacious thinking for all those reading along.

Modern mathematicians in general agree any number larger than 10 to the power of 70 represents zero possibility.

You must provide a source for this. I can't imagine anyone with a modicum of mathematical intelligence making such a claim. An unimaginably small probability is still a possibility. A non-mathematical term, "statistical impossibility," is used with everyday experiences to mean "so unlikely that is not even worth considering." When dealing with billions of years at a universal scale, this casual usage does not apply.

According to British mathematician Roger Penrose, the odds of the universe existing by non-designed random processes is 10 to the power of 10,123 against.

And what are the odds of the universe existing by a magic being that "spoke" it into existence? The common fallacy is the argument from incredulity ... you can't grasp the improbability of an event so you discard it as a possibility. In addition, this is special pleading , because you demand mathematical odds of a universe, but don't demand the mathematical odds of a magic being who allegedly created the universe.

To illustrate how irrationally impossible this is,...

Once again you demonstrate mathematical ignorance here. You are illustrating how improbable this is.

But the number calculated by Penrose...

I am not sure if you realize that Roger Penrose is an atheist he said so himself. This should just give you pause when the guy who's data you are using, who knows more about his data and calculations than any other person in the world, concludes from this that there probably is no God.

What evidence do Neil DeGrasse Tyson and other scientists have, who are betting against the unimaginably overwhelming mathematical odds against the universe being a result of "random", "unguided", "natural" "processes"?

Once again, you are ignoring the calculation needed to make a probabilistic judgement: that the universe is NOT a result of "random", "unguided", "natural" "processes." Until you have this number, you have only one side of the equation which is meaningless. Provide a source where Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said that the universe is a result of "random", "unguided", "natural" "processes".

Isn't science supposed to be based on verifiable evidence? What evidence do they have and, what testable method are they using to verify it?

I know of no scientific claims that there is no God. I know of many hypotheses and theories that rely on natural causes to explain effects, and each of these theories have their own scientific justifications (hypothesis don't require the same level of justification).

I wrote an article on probability and God, explaining and demonstrating in great detail that these calculations use Bayes' Theorem, which rely on estimates of prior probabilities. Depending on one's theological assumptions, the resulting calculation favor a God or a universe without a God. The bottom line is, math is useless for actually calculating the probability of a god, but it is a useful process in that it helps one critically think about all ones assumptions.

The universe is not remotely fine tuned for life. Life as we know it is unlikely, if not impossible, in the vast majority of the universe. In our solar system we are within a very narrow Goldilocks zone.

The mind boggling number of solar systems within each galaxy, of which there are a mind boggling number of within the universe, makes it highly likely that there would be some planets capable of supporting life, but adding them all up what would that equal? I'd guess that it would be astronomically less than 0.001%. That doesn't sound remotely fine tuned to me.

I know you didn't mention life on earth specifically, but when we discuss the odds against life on a given planet, against the number of suitable planets, it's safe to assume that you're more likely to find life where it occurred. The odds of winning the lottery for a given person are high, but if you then look at the odds in relation to a person who did win, i.e. after the fact, that's meaningless.

So, aside from all that, probability by definition means something is possible, so whatever claim of impossiblity your claiming but not citing, it appears to be wrong. Also maths deals with equations and absolutes, and science deals with building understanding based on observation.

Science has nothing at all to do with "betting against" anything, it's not based on coming up with an idea and then searching for evidence to try to prove the idea, nor is it based on trying to disprove ideas. There is a large focus on trying to disprove or falsify, but not as a starting position.

You ask what evidence scientists have? That's all scientists have. The starting point is evidence, an observation of something, and a hypothesis is formed to try to explain the evidence. The hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, if it isn't it's dead in the water. Evidence is gathered and empirical testing is performed, with particular focus on trying to disprove the hypothesis. If it passes testing it needs to be peer reviewed, with the testing repeated, and if it stands up to scrutiny published. Even as a theory it's not considered an absolute and is the best understanding with the current evidence and technology and is subject to change as new evidence is found (though that change is typically refinement rather than completely overturning).

Amidst all this scientists also say things in interviews, or write books, they discuss possibilities. And they get quote mined. People who won't accept what scientists actually say happily point to misquotes and accept that. Aside from this being dishonest, science doesn't work by "a scientist said something". No, that's not how science works, it's only evidence based, and if it's not in a published paper it's nothing.

Also scientists will and do point out things they don't know or potential pitfalls in their understanding, rather than claiming knowledge they don't have and with a view to further investigation. These are a popular target for quote mining in an attempt to make out that they are floundering in ignorance and dishonesty, when of course it's the quote miners who are guilty of these things.

While science is completely evidence based, and therefore rational, claims of god are completely without evidence, relying on attacks on science as an argument from ignorance or false dichotomy/bifurcation fallacy, as though disproving science somehow proves god, rather than actually proving god, arguments from incredulity, circular reasoning, shifting the burden of proof to the person not making the claim, etc. Dismissing things supported by evidence in favour of those supported by no evidence is completely irrational, and asking if science is supported by evidence is just ignorant.