Hume was a verificationist and approached miracles from an empirical view, relying on probability as a basis for his reasons for rejecting miracles.

Hume defined miracles as a ‘violation of the laws of nature’, he believed that the laws of nature were set in stone, through the use of a posteriori knowledge Hume identified them as being universal and unchanging. Hume observed that some Biblical miracles, such as Jesus walking on water, violated those laws of nature. He then went on to identify the probability that a violation of these laws could occur, Hume argued that if the probability of an event occurring was low then there was little chance that the miracle had actually occurred. This would be true in the event of a baby falling from a 3rd floor window and escaping unscathed, the probability of this happening is extremely low thus Hume would state that a report of it happening was false and it probably did not happen. Through using the principle of probability a miraculous event should be labelled as a miracle only where it would be unbelievable for it to be anything less. Upon following this principle it is less likely that the testimony is false than the miracle occurred should you have a prior belief, however if you do not believe in a deity and the probability of a miracle occurring then the miracles happening is less likely than the testimony being false. This argument used by Hume is not an effective argument as there are cases in which the laws of nature have been broken. WASP-18b is a planet that does not have the same laws of nature, if Hume’s definition of a miracle is to be used when looking at events on the planet it would seem that most natural occurrences could be classed as ‘miracles’.

One of Hume’s practical arguments against miracles included the human tendency to exaggerate and lie. Hume noted that some of the miracle claims resulted in either fame or increased social popularity for the person involved, he observed that some of these wild and fantastical stories were low in probability and to the logical mind were not believable. Thus, he concluded that reports of miracles such as these could not be trusted due to a lack of empirical evidence to support such claims. Secondly, Hume also noted that miracles occur within the ‘barbarous’ periods of history as well in the ‘less civilised societies’; he believed that they occurred in these societies as the lack of education would lead the people to be awed by such events that would possibly be known as natural events in civilised societies. Events such as the Aurora Borealis may have been believed by the uneducated as miracles caused by God as a demonstration of His power and presence within the universe, when the scientific explanation is simply a refraction of particles within the atmosphere. These two practical arguments are reasonable reasons for rejecting miracles, the tendency to lie for personal gain occurs commonly in the world, one example would be of a woman who claimed to have survived 9/11 but was actually in another country during the event. The lack of education is also a valid reason as many miraculous reports come from the medieval period or in the less educated nations across the world, there is a lack of knowledge that prevents people from understanding some natural phenomenon, instead believing them to be a miracle.

Another observation by Hume was that miracles in different religions contradict those in opposing religions; should these miracles in different nations all transgress the natural laws then they begin to contradict one another thus making each one less likely. Demonstrating how one who uses logic would not believe the existence of a miracle due to the lack of verification by external forces and the lack of visible evidence. Hume stated that ‘a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence’ thus concluding that historical evidence for a miracle is meaningless as the evidence cannot be trusted. Historical events cannot be trusted as being 100% accurate as many sources are written in a bias view, many different accounts of the same event by different people would be needed before a record could be trusted, as many miracles only happen to one individual this is not the case and thus, Hume rejected historical miracles.
In conclusion Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles hold some ground as they are logical arguments, the nature of some humans leads to the exaggeration of many stories creating fantastical events that probably never occurred to the extent claimed. The lack of empirical evidence would solidify some of his claims as well as the scientific explanations behind healing ‘miracles’, such as a migraine suddenly healing.