Some think that Hume's argument begs the question. Be that as it may, there seems to be a false dilemma here. That is to say, if we think that the only two options available here are "the laws of nature have been violated (i.e., a miracles occurred)" and "the laws of nature have not been violated (i.e., reports are inaccurate)" then it seems that we are engaged in black-and-white thinking, i.e., we are ignoring two additional options. The first option is that the laws of nature have changed. The second option is that we were wrong about what the laws of nature are.
In other words, when we are considering reports of miracles, we should consider which of the following four options is more likely:
- The laws of nature have been violated (i.e., God intervened in the natural order and suspended the laws of nature).
- The laws of nature have changed.
- We were wrong about what the laws of nature are.
- The laws of nature have not been violated (i.e., reports are inaccurate).
If this is correct, then is it ever reasonable to believe that a genuine miracle has occurred solely on the basis of witness testimony?