Hume's Argument Against Miracles Fails

After wrapping up my first debate, I was searching my mind for a perfect topic to propose. My mind fell blank. Fortunately, you came up with the debate I would have proposed if I would have proposed the perfect debate. So thanks, good luck, and let's do this. As the opening argument, I will let Mr. Hume speak for himself: "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be possibly imagined. Why is it more than probably, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable with the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. there must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is a full and direct proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle be rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior." [1] Hume writes at length detailing and expanding his argument, but this is the base of his contention. And as I understand it, and as I shall argue it, Hume's (and my) position is this: since by definition a miracle is the suspension of the laws of nature (ie. the definition of a miracle), and throughout human history no miracle has been empirically proven to have suspended nature's laws, then we can conclude that miracles do not exist. Hume's argument relies on the assumption of empirical knowledge to work, but since this notion informs our modern notion of scientific truth, it is a safe assumption to presume in this debate- given that citation of a scientific fact is constantly accepted as "evidence" on this site and in debate in general. When I took this debate, I thought the main challenge would be the burden of proof that defending Hume's assertion would imply. But as I reread Hume's argument against the existence of miracles, I realized that Hume's assertion is actually a negative one, and that the burden of proof is yours. See, Hume's argumentation is inductive- that is, since no miracle has ever been proven, it's absurd to believe in them. So you must either prove that a miracle is not a violation of nature's laws, which by the dictionary definition it is [2] or prove that a miracle has indeed occurred and can be proven, in which case the burden is yours. Obviously Hume's argument is more complex and relies on other points, but this being the basis, I will end now and see where we're at based on your refutation. Cheers [1] Hume, David "Of Miracles" in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 10 Part 1 [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...