Why is it that...?

Hume's argument always bothers me. A miracle is supposedly a supernatural occurence outside the laws of nature, not a natural refutation of them. The believer in miracles doesn't doubt the laws of nature exist so the strength of their evidence isn't really relevant.

To put it another way, if our evidence for a supposed natural law (eg the dead do not come back to life) was actually very weak, then the dead coming back to life wouldn't seem a miracle. The stronger our evidence for natural laws, the more miraculous is any supposed exception to them.

That's not to say the conclusion is we ought to believe in miracles, just Hume's argument that we ought not doesn't seem to hold water.

Edit: ah I see Archelaus already made this point much more succinctly than my attempt!