If a person likes risk (he gambles on the lottery), how is that supposed to lead him to avoid risk (crossing the street)?

Yosiphon

Think of it this way: what Rabbi Michi answered you is very similar to David Hume’s argument, and I don’t remember its formal wording. But his decisive blow against miracles was—as Rabbi Michi elaborated in his book Truth and Unstable—that one must compare the testimony-claim against its alternative. Indeed, it is not likely that testimony about a miracle that occurred in front of thousands of people is simply made up—but what is more likely? That such an event, which breaks all our understanding of reality and has no parallel at all in everyday life, really happened? Or that someone simply invented it through some distortion in the processes by which the story was transmitted, or something of that sort? Of course, the invention is far more plausible. (It follows that one who chooses not to doubt the revelation at Mount Sinai is like someone who remains shut up in his house and doesn’t cross the street lest he be run over. But someone who chooses not to believe in it at all is not open to the opportunity to win the lottery of his life: the possibility that the word of God is indeed accessible to us in some way…)