According to Hume a miracle is: “A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”, this question all depends how you define a miracle, most people in the modern world understand a miracle as Hume’s definition, but not everyone agrees.

Supporters of the existence of miracles have different views, aquines is one of these. He has three differnet types of definition, An event done by God which nature could not do – could be said to be the most traditional approach. They are acts that contradict our regular experience. Aquinas uses the example of the reversal of the course of the sun, An event done by God which nature could do, but not in this order such as recovering Asses the view that miracles are an obstacle to faith. from paralysis or a terminal illness. Its possible for these things to happen but it is not usually expected, and so could be attributed to the direct intervention of God. And A event done which nature could do but without using the principles or forces of nature. For example, recovering from a cold more quickly than usual perhaps because someone prayed for this, and then it might be called a miraculous intervention of God.

These definitions allow for a range of possible events, which we could call miracles, they also do not limit a miracle to a violation of a natural law and so is therefore, primarily identified by Gods intervention. This leaves us with the idea that miracle is an act of God, which is beneficial to the recipient, which may break a natural law but does not necessarily have to.

Richard Swinburnes argument again like aquineses hinges on the laws of nature being violated, Swinburne says “if god has reason to interact with us , he has reason very occasionally to intervene and suspend those natural laws by which our life is controlled”, Swinburne acknowledges that it is difficult to outweigh the scientific evidence, but that we do have enough historical evidence to suggest that there is a God and that God can violate the laws of nature.
It is perfectly probable that there could be one off exceptional and unrepeatable occurrences. The laws of nature do not have to be rewritten. If God is omnipotent, then he quite clearly could suspend the laws of nature although not too often as this will interfere with scientific progress and free will.
He argues from first principles and argues that future predictions could always nullify a law. When an event violates the Law of nature, the appearance may simply be that no one has thought of the Law that could explain the event. “We rely on the evidence of senses and perception to give us information about the world, why do we not rely on the evidence and the testimony of those claiming to witness a miracle”. Swinburne also recognises the problem that God’s intervention would have on human freedom which is why he argues that God doesn’t intervene too often.