Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts

by Craig S. Keener

Despite claiming to argue inductively, Hume’s argument against miracles is deductive. He argues from nature’s uniformity against miracles, which is the point in question. He generalizes from the alleged lack of good testimony for miracles to exclude what may in fact be good testimony for miracles. If Hume intends such arguments to make miracles impossible, his case is circular. If Hume intends such arguments merely to predict the weight of finite probabilities rather than to render miracles impossible, his case falters against considerable evidence for miracles. If Hume argues that no evidence in principle can be sufficient to compel belief in miracles, his claim might succeed to the extent that the evaluator of the evidence held tenaciously to antimiraculous presuppositions, but is not logically necessary if the evaluator is genuinely open-minded on the question.[209] None of the various interpretations of Hume offer a successful argument against the possibility of miracles or even of finding his argument more persuasive than not.