At what point will one wager that a phenomenon is a miracle, a privileged observation, or some yet-to-be-determined natural mechanism?
Dawkins has made it clear that nothing could count as evidence for the existence of God. He has shown himself as a closed-minded, dogmatic atheist. You can see the demonstration for yourself in the video below. It starts at 12:30 and goes to 15:30.
This is a video clip that should be shown in churches everywhere. Dawkins, with agreement from Boghossian, has just admitted that if God Himself were to appear to Dawkins, complete with mind-boggling displays of miraculous power, all during the second coming of Christ, he would NOT consider that evidence for God’s existence. Well, if an empirical demonstration of God and miracles would not count as evidence for God’s existence, then nothing will. And that is essentially what he confesses at the end of the clip.
For those in the world of skilled mathematical gamblers in the casinos, we realize hypothetically among a population of 1000 highly skilled mathematical gamblers, one poor chap will be the unlucky guy with a bad run of luck that will make him the 1-out-of-1000 unlucky phenomenon that is more than 3 sigma from expectation. In analogous manner there will be that one guy that is 1-out-of-1000 lucky.
For bank rolls that are exponentially grown from an initial amount of (say) 10,000 dollars according to fractional Kelly betting (see: Kelly Criterion), the difference between bad and good luck will be the difference between ending up with say 5,000 vs. millions! One can construct a simulation on Excel or write a program to demonstrate this. So the question arises, at what point is it the gambler’s skill or bad luck or good luck that is the mechanism for his success or lack thereof. This question is extensible to the question of OOL.
Even Dawkins and Koonin admit the probability of the origin of life is far from mathematical expectation. If one could hypothetically get some credible odds on the question of OOL or any miracle for that matter, at what point will one wager the Origin of Life is a miracle or just some privileged observation like that lucky 1-in-a-buzzillion gambler or some other yet-to-be-determined natural mechanism? I suppose there is no formal right or wrong answer, but personally I’ve decided I’d wager on OOL being a miracle.
Ideally one tries to make wagers on uncertain phenomenon that have a high Sharpe ratio:
In finance, the Sharpe ratio (also known as the Sharpe index, the Sharpe measure, and the reward-to-variability ratio) is a way to examine the performance of an investment by adjusting for its risk. The ratio measures the excess return (or risk premium) per unit of deviation in an investment asset or a trading strategy, typically referred to as risk (and is a deviation risk measure), named after William F. Sharpe. To this day,[when?] the Sharpe ratio is still found as a prime metric for any alternative investment.
I loved playing high sharp ratio games in casinos, but unfortunately, the few times I managed it, Casino security would swoop down on me and expel me for my thought crimes. At Hollywood casino in Tunica I was threated with jail time if I ever returned (some stupid trespassing law against people who use their minds to beat the game of blackjack). Oh well!
Yours Truly was listed in the credits of this documentary 🙂