For multiple reasons, Hume wrote that we are not rationally justified in believing in miracles we have not personally witnessed. These reasons include human behavior, statistics, and defining what makes a miracle. One of the main reasons is that the number of times natural order has predated and continued after a miracle. This means that if nature was disturbed for one moment, why was it only that moment or person? The statistics are stacked against the miracles. Additionally, why did it not have any future effects on the natural order? One response could be that the lack of ripple effect is proof of the power of God, but that answer is not enough when critical of the applications of God's power. This leads to his next point, which is that unless you have seen a miracle with your own eyes, then it is not valid.…show more content… Already as a philosopher, Hume contradicts this norm. This is in part because he has moved past the fear of disagreeing with the Church and the guilt of questioning. To be able to critically witness a miracle or examine religion, you must move past that guilt and fear, and it's not possible to know if the people who saw it had done that. In addition, once time has passed, the written word could have been manipulated to suit a narrative or agenda. Also, there is no true method to prove a miracle. Where is the line between getting all the green lights on the way to work and raising the dead? Hume would say both are statistical anomalies, but one goes against the natural order. That comparison is clear-cut, but what about heart transplants? Every day, surgeons bring other people back to life. Every person who would have died without extremely invasive medical intervention is a miracle. To Hume from the 1700s, it would seem like one. Miracles, therefore, are extraordinary acts that go against the natural order relevant to the
