Beshir Elnefeidi

Humanities

1. According to Hume, testimony is the only evidence we could have that a miracle
occurred, is because “testimony of such witnesses, that its falsehood would be more
improbable than the occurrence of the events it relates to.” Hume argues that whether one
believes a miracle has occurred (due to testimony) or that it has not occurred (due to
testimony), it is basically the same, and the idea that it did not occur may actually be
greater.. Therefore, Hume believes that a testimony from a witness is nothing better than
not believing it all together.. Hume argues that authentic revelations are in concurrence
with miracles and because miracles were violations of laws of nature, the performance of
such events could only be presented by God or with divine powers, meaning no
testimony is adequate to establish a miracle.

2. Hume states that the “testimony of such witnesses, that its falsehood would be more
improbable than the occurrence of the events it relates,” explaining to readers that the
claims stated by the witness being false are more unlikely than the actual event.
3. Hume says it is not that just a miracle has to be extremely improbable, the miracle has to
contain the sensation that it is impossible – contrary to a law of nature (‘instead of being
only marvellous, . . . really miraculous’). “The Event” that Hume constantly refers to is
supposed to be miraculous. Hume asks his readers to believe that The Event occurred,
and that this belief in itself was contrary to a law of nature. If one believes the Event
occurred that is contrary to the law of nature, it would be contrary to the human
experience explaining the theory of how nature works. This leaves people with 2 options:
the belief that the event did occur and the belief it did not. Even with a testimony, there is
the possibility that the event did not occur and the possibility of it not occurring is still
very likely, if not more likely. Therefore, believing something against the law of nature,
such as a miracle, is going against the law of nature as a whole.
4. Hume’s ultimate conclusion is basically that miracles are “Our evidence that what they
report to have happened cannot happen is as good as any evidence we ever have; on the
other side of the question we have just – their testimony.” Hume argues that in order for
the miracle to be believable, a witness should have a “testimony that is very extensive
and uniform.” In conclusion, Hume does not deny the possibility of a miracle occurring,
but he does believe that it is a normal occurrence as it goes against the natural laws of
nature. Simply put, Hume says, “Our evidence that what they report to have happened
cannot happen is as good as any evidence we ever have; on the other side of the question
we have just – their testimony.” With this being said, the idea that the miracle even
occurred is much less than the falsity of the testimony.