In order to create an appropriate response regarding the proclamation above, the statement itself requires analyzing due to its problematic ambiguity, for example it must first be established by what we mean by the word 'miracle'. This is a crucial clarification because concept of miracles has been debated within philosophical dilemmas for centuries and not surprisingly, several contrasting definitions has been postulated. Hume defined a miracle as a "violation of the laws of nature" and consequently rejected their occurrence as both improbable and impractical. This view has been supported by scientists and philosophers such as Atkins, Dawkins and too some extent Wiles. However there are contrasting views put forward by Aquinas, Swinburne, Tillich and Holland that argue quite the opposite of Hume; proclaiming that miracles have religious significance and that events do not have to break the laws of nature in order to be a miracle, specifically contrasting Hume's postulation. These contrasting views make it imperative to first establish what we mean by the term 'miracle'.
As explained above, Hume rejects the concept of miracles, postulating that miracles are a "violation of natural laws by a volition of a particular deity". Hume put forward two arguments that help illustrate his point. The first argument that Hume used to refute the concept of miracles is concerned with the lack of probability involved in their occurrence. This argument is also known as Hume's 'Theoretical Argument'. He argued that evidence from people's experience of observing the world showed that the laws of nature are unchanging and fixed, they are not subject to being altered. This leads us to making predictions about what will happen in similar cases in the future. An example of this is when water is heated to 100 ̊C we assume it will boil, just as it always has. This has been established as a scientific fact that cannot be violated according to natural law.