I will argue that Hume's argument is plausible in explaining why it is highly unlikely for a miracle to occur because no testimony given by a person can establish a miracle, as would require an explanation that trumps the laws of nature, which is highly unlikely. I agree with Hume's argument and believe it is correct; however, I have some objections to some of his points. The central claim Hume is trying to make is that no testimony given by a person can establish a miracle. Hume explains how a miracle can exist: "Unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsity would be more miraculous" (Enquiry X.1, p. 77). Hume believes that the only way a miracle could occur is if the falsity of the testimony constituted a greater miracle, which cannot possibly happen. Human testimony has no real connection to any miraculous event. Experience is what gives humans the ability to believe in something. Experience provides truth, remembrance, and rejects false claims when presented. The only way a miracle can exist is if the testimony given by the person can actually establish a miracle, which for Hume is not probable. Hume states that evidence is derived from past experience, and probability is the result of opposing experiences, "And as the evidence, derived from human witnesses and testimonies, is founded on past experience, therefore varies with experience, and it is considered either as evidence or as a probability, depending on the conjunction between each particular type of relationship” (Inquiry X.1, pages 73-74), the probability of something happening in contradiction to all experiences uniform must always be judged to be less than the probability that the senses are deceiving… half the paper… and observed” (Request X .1, p. 77). have happened before and will always happen. Now, a violation of nature is something that does not always happen, for example, a rock that does not fall to the ground after a person lets go of it. So a miracle is something that is not expected that it happens, or that it has never happened before. Following these premises, Hume says that a dead man coming back to life is a miracle; why it has never been observed is somewhat ridiculous. People don't just sit back and watch the dead come back to life, because they know that simply won't happen. This is a flaw in Hume's argument that I think damages his point. Works Cited Hume, David. An investigation into the human intellect. 2nd edition. Eric Steinberg, ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993 [1777].