What Is Hume's Argument Against Miracles

In Hume’s On Miracles, Hume joins an argument that was occurring at the time on miracles and their place in the foundations of the Christian Faith. Hume, however, comes to the conclusion that we cannot be justified in our belief in any miracles. I believe that Hume does provide a valid, defensible argument in the claim that we are not justified in our belief of miracles and we can provide answers to problems that may arise from statements in his argument. Although Hume’s original argument is in my opinion strong, with a few added statements I believe we can offer a better argument against justified belief in miracles. In order to begin our discussion, we must clarify the beliefs that Hume basis his argument off of, and the beliefs
We must now also give a definition of the laws of nature as it is now introduced, as L is a law of nature iff every observation up to this point has confirmed the original observation of L. Laws of Nature can only be matters of fact as perceived to come from past experience. Although these two philosophical definitions are foundations for his argument, Hume’s entire argument against the justified belief in miracles is based in his epistemological principle which states, one ought to believe what is most probable, based on past experience. By this principle, we come to believe the certain matter of facts. One of these is that we have no rational basis for believing any reoccurring event, such as the sun rising every day, and, therefore, our entire system is non- rational. We must agree that although we have no rational belief, our past experience holds some stake in predicted future events, and, therefore, may call upon these experiences when
Hume’s Argument for the claim that we’re not justified in our belief in the occurrence of miracles has five statements and it begins with the First Statement: We consider resurrection as a violation of the laws of nature as a dead person has come back to life. Secondly, it is a law of nature that dead people don’t come back to life(based on all prior experience), Statement three is that based on our past experience, every observed case, the probability of a dead person coming back to life is zero. We maintain that Hume’s Epistemological Principle is true. Therefore, we cannot justifiably believe that dead people come back to life. However strong the total argument each statement must hold up to the scrutiny that may be presented by those with opposing views and ideas. In order to defend statement three, we must acknowledge past cases of proposed miracles and attempt to define them as a natural occurrence and, therefore, refute the title of a miracle. We must acknowledge the possibility of fraud and conspiracy to deceive, as well as detail what makes a proposed miracle validated above fraud and conspiracy. For example, a proposed miracle may present an argument for its existence if it is a worldwide event, noticed by historians and educated peoples from all over,