Hume has stated an argument against the possibility of knowing with certainty that a miracle has happened.
If we know about the miracle by testimony, so the likelihood that we are deceived or that he who tells us the miracle is deceived is higher than the likelihood that a real miracle has happened, for a miracle is a violation of the natural laws, and all that we know with certainty supports the opinion that these laws does not change. Perhaps we have also some reason to trust the witness, but there are always more facts in support of the regularity of the natural laws than in support of the trustworthiness of the witness. And since we have to subscribe to what is the most likely, it is but reasonable to reject the claim that a miracle has happened.
Or if we experience directly what seems to be a miracle, it is more likely that we are deceived by our senses than that what we experience is real, for the same reason as stated above.
The series of “causes” stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow - but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a “miracle,” the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has “explained” impulse. How could we ever explain? – Nietzsche
“"As to what appears outwardly of the connection . . . it depends on the determining action [taqdir] of God - praise be to Him! - who creates [the appearances] in a sequence [ ala’l tasawuq]." – Al Ghazali
“nature is too strong for principle.†– Hume
The “counter†is simple. Everything is a “miracleâ€. God is the “cause” of all events. The distinction becomes meaningless.
As I’ve come to understand it, a miracle for us is the experience of the natural laws of a higher cosmos manifesting for some reason in the one in which our life is normally experienced.
the very nature of a miracle is that it is somethign that is unlikely to have happened.
i.e miraculous!
so he asks us to reject it on the grounds that it is more likely that something else has happened (i.e our senses decieving us, or our interlocutor decieving us, or their senses decieving them)
i don’t think this can be refted, unless any miracle were to be proven.
then you could counter with the old “aah, but it has happened that way before” argument.
as it stands, no miracle is proven so there is no reason not to accept Hume’s argument.
