Evidence for miracles is often complex, unusual, or disputed, making it hard for the average person to evaluate.
David Hume argued that the evidence typically provided for miracles is not strong enough to justify belief in them and that up to his point in time every claimed miracle had a window for error or lies to be involved. He does not assume miracles are impossible; he assesses whether human testimony is sufficient to establish them.
The burden to show something true beyond reasonable doubt rests on extraordinary claims. Unusual or highly improbable events require proportionally strong evidence to be credible. Christianity sometimes claims miraculous events without demanding comparable evidence.
If a claim is extraordinary (e.g., a fig tree withers miraculously), strong evidence is needed. Claiming miracles for religious events without it is inconsistent with general standards of evidence and honesty.
If an event is impossible or did not happen, no amount of evidence can prove it occurred. Therefore, proving that miracles are possible is a prerequisite for using evidence of specific miracles as credible. Religious claims often assume the possibility of miracles without arguing for it. Religion often treats testimonial or anecdotal evidence as sufficient proof for events that may be impossible. This is logically problematic because it assumes what it needs to prove (circular reasoning).
Evidence for miracles must be provisional. A rational approach would treat miracles as tentatively accepted only until natural explanations are discovered. Historical trends show that many events once thought miraculous are now explained scientifically. If religion were rational, it would acknowledge that claims of miracles could be overturned by new knowledge. Instead, religious claims often assert miracles as absolutely sure, ignoring future disproof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary scrutiny. Unexplained or surprising events do not automatically qualify as miracles; they may indicate a lack of knowledge rather than the intervention of the impossible.
Given the improbability of miracles, the poor methods of validating them that are so rife and the insufficiency of evidence, skepticism is a rational stance. This approach avoids assuming miracles are real without demonstrable probability or proof.