David Hume was a 16th century Philosopher who was skeptical about .
In his book An Enquiry Concerning Human .
Understanding, he dedicates a section to explain how unlikely miracles are; this is section X. In this section he goes on to say that they are the least probable things to occur. .
Hume defines miracles as, "a transgression of a law of nature by a .
particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible .
agent."(p.149) Basically, he believes that miracles violate the laws of nature. .
Before we discuss miracles we need a little background. For Hume the highest .
court of appeal is probability. He believes that all knowledge of a matter of fact is based on past experiences, and customs. For Hume something is "true" if it is probable, and is "false" if it is improbable. When discussing a miracle, the witness of the miracle play a role as to the likeliness of it, as far as Hume is concerned. Obviously, human testimony can be true or not(either a lie or exaggeration of the truth). Before talking to in depth about miracles it is important to know how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. The answer for Hume would be which ever is more probable, is more reliable. Hume has a couple of suggestions on how to distinguish between which sources are reliable, and which are not. If something defies the laws of nature, meaning that it goes against past experience, then it is improbable. For example, it is improbable that someone could walk on water, because that would defy the laws of nature as we have experienced them. It would be more probable that nobody walked on water, and that the witness to this event was not telling the truth. Some other ways Hume can tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources is if one witness contradicts another, if the witness has a doubtful character, if there are only a few witnesses, or if lying about the scenario would benefit the witness.