In reading the ideas of David Hume, I have came to believe that he was telling
us the miracles don’t exist. They are sort of a “Mission impossible.” We
have no evidence that they exist. Some might say that religion gives us examples
of miracles. But there are no facts to support their miracles. If there ever
was, then they were lost over the many years. People might also say that
miracles happen all the time, but it’s just not true. Everything that happens
has some scientific fact or law behind in no matter how small. So to put it all
in perspective, Hume's argument against miracles centers around his fundamental
position on causality. He claims that the human notion of cause and effect is
ungrounded in empirical evidence, but rather given only reasonable probability
through continuous reinforcement. I.e., I touch fire I feel pain. This does not
eccesitate that when I touch fire I will always have to feel pain, but rather I
have no good reason to think that it will not happen. Therefore his argument
against miracles says that no one has good reason to believe that events outside
of the witnessed laws of nature should ever occur. Miracles are for Hume
irrational beliefs where causal belief is not absolute but rather probable. The
problem is, what do you define as a miracle? An event that goes against the
"laws of nature" or the fact that we even exist is a miracle...
certainly it is highly probable that we shouldn't!