I think you’re missing some key features of the religious argument in your gloss of it. It’s not simply that God does low probability things for the lulz: it’s important that Trump’s opponents in the election (Clinton, the Democrats, etc.) be aligned with Satan, such that their victory would bring about the end of the world/human extinction. And God’s intervention to make an exceedingly unlikely event happen, contrary to the predictions of ordinary natural law, to thwart such a victory – what one might term a miracle – is taken as evidence of His existence. Isn’t this in fact what you would predict we would observe under such stakes? That you might call it “anthropics” instead of “eucatastrophe” doesn’t change much.
I think you’re missing some key features of the religious argument in your gloss of it. It’s not simply that God does low probability things for the lulz: it’s important that Trump’s opponents in the election (Clinton, the Democrats, etc.) be aligned with Satan, such that their victory would bring about the end of the world/human extinction. And God’s intervention to make an exceedingly unlikely event happen, contrary to the predictions of ordinary natural law, to thwart such a victory – what one might term a miracle – is taken as evidence of His existence.
Isn’t this in fact what you would predict we would observe under such stakes? That you might call it “anthropics” instead of “eucatastrophe” doesn’t change much.