Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. My own reaction is that this violates tentativity, but the essay itself addresses the question from several points of view, including the one that miracles are non-repeatable and a-scientific, a view you might share.
Have you recently changed your mind on this?
quote:
when John says that Jesus turned the water into wine we know that isn't true
Message 718
quote:
quote:
How do you know it isn't true?
Because it's a miracle.
Message 735
quote:
Regarding John and the miracles specifically, I think I've already explained this. The suspension of natural laws renders it false immediately.
Message 753
quote:
You think tentativity argues that the probability of anything lies in the range 0 < p <=1. I think some things are impossible
Message 908
Maybe they'd call it a miracle, maybe something else, but surely they'd call it something much shorter than "inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws."
Scientists tend to go for 'anomalous'. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example was an anomaly in the 19th Century. It didn't seem to conform to Newtonian laws (ie., the known natural laws of the time).