David Hume's Argument On Miracles

Hume on Miracles

In 1737, Hume produced a manuscript of somehow lengthy and daring work entitled “ A treaties of Human Nature “ which was published in three volumes between (1739-1740).His writings were largely ostracized by a small number of people who read it . Recognizing that his philosophical work would never receive a fair hearing, Hume shifted to writing letters and so he devoted himself to enhancing his literary style and writing clear and literal essays .Having established his literary reputation, Hume returns to writing philosophical writing in a more elegant essay form. As I try to examine his empirical approach to the natural world which bases one understands on the use of our senses.
In order to explain Hume’s critique regarding
We never experienced in our life spam or heard from history that a person could raise from the dead, if abnormally this happens, we would call it a miracle. Here comes Hume’s statement "the hidden variable thesis," which means miracles defined as violations of natural laws, are just less probable than normal natural events requested to justify the known fact.

Hume’s arguments on miracles de pend on the narrow ways by which he would define natural laws and credible testimonies. In Hume’s view, why is it less suitable to arrive at a belief through rationality and experience instead of basing our credible testimonies on historical facts that are highly questionable and not more credible?
It is in this part of his essay that Hume attempts to validate his conflicting views of religion and argue for his early philosophical views on experience and logic.Principally, other effective variable must exist within the dominion of nature laws that would explain the happening of extraordinary events that contradicts these laws. In the above mentioned example, the resurrection of a dead person might occur since the person wasn’t really dead in the first
Hume believes that these testimonies are not reliable since there are never a sufficient amount of intelligent witnesses, and people love bizarre and extraordinary tales and tend to lie. Also, miracles from different religions contradict each other making their arguments flawed. There is never enough proof for miracles. He also argues that stories of miracles are told by “barbarous people”. Christians believe that if Hume is right, this poses a huge problem for Christianity since this religion is full of miracles since Jesus walked on waters, turned water into wine, healed sick people, resurrected people from the dead, and even got resurrected himself. The arguments Christian use to critique Hume’s argument on miracles are that there is such a thing as human testimonies. However, there should be enough intelligent witnesses in order to prove the validity and the reliability of the miracles. Christians argue against Hume by saying that it is sufficient and reasonable to accept an improbable event based on a human testimony since Christians do it all the time. According to Bill Craig, Hume has not considered all probabilities in his probability theory. According to Christians, Hume’s mistake is that he considered the likelihood of the occurrence of miracles in light of his general understanding and knowledge of the world. He should have assessed what would have happened if