When we apply the theory of argumentum absurdum to both Hume and Aristotle’s argument, the equation would yield the same results. Since humans are capable of infallibility, and humans write about miracles, then miracles cannot be proven to exist, therefore, God cannot exist if his existence is reliant upon the miracles. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be logically proven under Hume’s claim, since we cannot see God, we cannot prove miracles exist, and God cannot exist where man is corrupt. To be fair, the converse is offered for evaluation. What if an atheist believed that the miracle argument was unsound because they were quite certain that God did exist? Given their argument, they would in fact, by rejecting God’s existence,
