David Hume Why Do Miracles Exist

Miracles are important because they provide a basis for belief in God, many people believe God exists because they have witnessed miracles whilst others believe that a transcendent being doesn’t exist, and so try to prove that miracles don’t either. I believe the findings of modern science have not ruled out the possibility of miracles so it would be absurd to dismiss their possibility.
There are many definitions of the term ‘miracle’, the most common being ‘an event caused by God’. However, David Hume defines a miracle as a ‘violation of the laws of nature’. Defining the word miracle is central in arguing for/against their existence, as the slightest difference in meaning can turn the whole argument around. For example, by Hume defining
if god can perform miracles, why not work them to help prevent suffering? Why did millions die in the concentration camps of WW2 if God has the power to prevent them? Christians respond to this problem by claiming it is beyond human ability to understand the actions of God. Others claim that God does act but people fail to recognise his actions e.g. many people died in the 2004 South East Asian tsunami but many people survived in extraordinary circumstances such as drifting on pieces of rubbish washed out to sea until rescued. This certainly provides good cause to believe in miracles but it brings back the question of why God is selective in who he saves and who he
witnesses. Laws of nature appear to be fixed and unvarying e.g. law of gravity. Miracles appear to violate the laws of nature and so it is logical to conclude it is more likely the report is incorrect than a law being violated. However, Richard Swinburne responds by stating laws of nature are only good general descriptions of the world, they do not remove the possibility of miracles occurring. This is based on the assumption that all natural laws are corrigible if a new discovery is made. Hume’s practical argument states miracles have a lack of convincing testimony from educated people and only seem to happen among ignorant and barbarous people. He bases this on the observation that early history is full of miracle stories but as nations develop and become educated these stories disappear. Also, if one religion claims a miracle proved their religion true, the value of this statement is cancelled out by the fact other religions equally claim miracles happen but is this true? Are miracles about proving one religion correct and another wrong? Challenges to Hume’s practical argument include the inductive problem. Hume believes in the laws of nature because empirical observations support the claim. Witness accounts of miracles are of the same kind of observation. Hume cannot dismiss observations of miracles and accept observations of science. The question to ask is: which interpretation of