However, it is with this third critique that Hume takes issue. He then seeks to argue against the charge that the resurrection cannot be proved to the satisfaction of a rational man. A weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger one. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Thus our firm and unalterable experience is the basis of these 'laws'.
Human testimony is normally truthful and can be assumed to be a proof as to what has taken place.
The wise man will believe the certainty. Hume is not saying that miracles are logically not possible. He is merely offering a check for the 'wise man' as to the validity of witnesses and their testimonies concerning the miraculous within the realm of sense-based experience. In Hume's official argument there is no attempt to rule out a priori the possibility of miracles taking place and at no point, not even during incautious over-statements of his position, does he ever rule out the legitimacy of believing what we see. There is the possibility of disbelieving something which may have happened.