What argument did David Hume make against using miracles as proof of religious revelation?

In his work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, the Scottish philosopher David Hume argued against using miracles as proof of religious revelation by focusing on the weight of evidence and the probability of events.1

Hume, a prominent empiricist and skeptic, contended that because human experience consistently demonstrates the uniformity of nature, miracles are inherently highly improbable. Rather than dismissing miracles as logically impossible or inconsistent with causal laws, Hume emphasized the necessity of evaluating historical testimony. He maintained that the evidence provided in favor of miracles is never strong enough to outweigh the overwhelming evidence for the regular, predictable laws of nature. Consequently, he concluded that it is always more rational to believe that a witness is mistaken or lying than to believe that a miracle has actually occurred.1