ct as such that we can see. They are only beliefs that one has based on his or her prior experiences. When a person continuously sees an act immediately followed by another act, numerous times, a correlation between the two is formed. Hume does not say this is extremely problematic, he says it to make sure people are informed about their beliefs. Hume's primary argument is that nature teaches us through experience, therefore we develop customs and habits through these experiences which give us our beliefs.
             So what is Hume's position on miracles? Hume interprets or defines a miracle as such; a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, an event which is not normal to most of mankind. Hume explains this point brilliantly when he states, "Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it has ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden" (Hume p.76). Laws of nature are established (according to Hume) by experiences. Hume defines the laws of nature to be what has been "uniformly" observed by mankind, such as the laws of identity and gravity. Because laws of nature are established by past experiences, and miracles are violations of these laws, we can then conclude that miracles are violations of these experiences. However there is one problem with the "laws" of nature, which is the ability for them to always hold true and in fact be laws in the strict sense. You see, though these laws are statement
             ...