There have been attacks on this argument presented from philosophers. For one, it is clear that even in this advanced stage of scientific knowledge, people do not know everything. Sometimes, something that is considered natural law today, may not be an actual law tomorrow, and can break anytime. Natural laws are only unbreakable, until they break and when they do, they are not natural laws anymore.
Furthermore, Hume centres this whole debate of the concept miracle around one definition, which in turn centres itself on the transgression of natural laws brought about by God. That is not the universal definition of a miracle; it is only a portion of what people feel a miracle truly is. For a religious person a miracle does not need break any constants of nature. A miracle can be the most trivial of things that is being thought as a miraculous intervention by God by the believer. For example, it has not rained in the desert for months, people are starting to die from dehydration, and then all of a sudden rain appears. The believing community understands this as a miracle from God, even though no natural laws have been broken. Better yet, natural have been adhered to. It has not rained in months, and the rain cycle is due at that point at that time. Nothing wondrous has to happen, but God is viewed here as a commitment of an all loving God, to always provide and nourish, and is merely fulfilling His duties, following the thoughts of the Dominican priest, . Special circumstances and the timing have led the community to believe that this is a miracle in an anti-realist way, no matter what anyone may argue. For them, this is a miracle carved in stone.
If a miracle has been reported, for example, Hume would find it necessary to question that report. He would start by questioning the probability of the law of nature breaking to allow such a miracle to happen. Would laws of physics break, for that minute, just for Jesus, to allow Him to walk on water? It seems very unlikely and is far more reasonable to conclude that no such miraculous occurrences have happened.
From another angle, a miracle is not only reported by the person who has actually experienced it, but also by others who either have also experienced the same phenomena and reports they have given are very similar, or at least saw the person going through that experience and it’s the effects of that person after the experience.
However, Hume dismisses this argument, by claiming that high profile miracles, such as the feeding of the five thousand and the change of water to wine are spread by ‘ignorant and barbaric nations’. Hume even goes on to say that, if a report of a miracle was truly to be believed, it would be reported by the educated people, or at least be investigated by them. A miracle can be confirmed a miracle, iff the supposed miracle be subjected to thorough examination and scrutiny by the best in the fields, such as scientists- the people who have nothing to gain and everything to lose. If these people cannot explain the situation, it can be termed as a miracle.
Even though this seems like a good argument, it is not. Hume is using an ad hominem argument, because it attacks the person not the actual issue at hand. These do not make good arguments. Just because person A is less intelligible than person B, what that person A has to say does not become less important or less reliable.
Several would dispute this stand taken by Hume, some would even say that people should accept testimonies given by the person who has actually experienced this miracle, under the absence of special considerations, seriously, and the sceptical arguments should be rejected. This is the principle of credulity. Additionally, again in the absence of special considerations, believing the experiences of others is reasonable. This is the principle of testimony.
