"Of Miracles" by David Hume

[JuliaL]

I haven't had the chance to read it all, but what do you think of William Lane Craig's article which covers the argument by Hume?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective

OK, I read most, well, maybe half, of it.
Pretty much my interpretation is that WLC is opposing Spinosa and Hume on miracles by saying, "Well it could happen."
Yea, if natural laws aren't actually 100% inviolable, or if we are interpreting the universe wrongly.
The bible could  be true even if it is totally consistent with a scam by sleazy bronze age con-men.

But that's a far cry from showing that the miracles of the bible did  happen as described.
What it doesn't explain, for me, is why:
The bible doesn't include any useful information subsequently proven true.
Why God decided to go dormant for 2000 years after hanging with the patriarchs, streetwalkers and Levites the previous 4000.
All advertised falsifiable miracles are indistinguishable from hoaxes.
The dead sea scrolls weren't stored on blu-ray in a stasis field waiting for some goatherd to find them.

Unfortunately, Craig has a profitable gig putting an intellectual gloss on what are very low probability, misleading arguments.
Miracles could  have happened if what we call natural law, isn't.  I'm more interested in whether or not they did.