Let me ask you a question: do you believe in miracles? Or, more precisely, do you believe that in today's scientific era it is illogical to connect a fact foreign to common sense to one that would constitute evidence of the intervention of a supernatural being? Here's a moment to think about it. Let me guess, you're sitting there trying to make a decision. Don't worry; you are not the first person who doesn't believe in miracles. In the past, about two centuries ago, not even the Scottish philosopher David Hume believed it. And you probably have a good reason not to, too. But let's not digress. My focus is mainly on one of the many topics that philosophers have been debating for years. Does David Hume's idea of ​​"induction" support his argument against his appeal to the laws of nature in his account of a miracle? Currently, the answer to this question varies. Some say yes, some say no. And as we will discover later, the answer can be one or the other, depending on the individual perspective. Personally, I think Hume's discussion of miracles can be said to be at times inconsistent with his earlier discussion of induction and causation, but overall, in a broader sense, his theories of induction can be linked to his explanation about miracles. But before we discuss Delving further into this idea, let us first recap Hume's position on induction and the arguments against the miracle event. Hume's idea of ​​induction is an argument for human justification of beliefs. It suggests that human beliefs are based on experience; that the sun may not rise tomorrow is logically possible but in reality logic cannot really prove that it will. So, Hume puts forward his argument; that we use our experience of the sun rising every day in the past,...... middle of paper......m beliefs and evidence that cannot be justified by arguments. In a simple and assertive way, Hume showed us that common sense and science are matters of faith. We have no way of avoiding or resisting the faith that Hume so strenuously defends. It is fair to conclude that, while Hume attempts to disprove the existence of a miracle, both through the theory of induction and through his personal, individual opinion, Hume's conclusions tend to fail in a number of respects, but the most intriguing concerns his inadequate proposal and later the revision of a law of nature. Forget the notion that if a more accurate explanation were ever found, there would be no reason to view miracles as a violation of the laws of nature. Who says miracles have to violate the laws of nature? The unexpected and daily events we experience cannot justify the miracle?