In section 10 of his influential work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume makes a convincing argument against the belief in miracles. He asserts that miracles violate the laws of nature and that our belief in these laws is based on our experience of constant conjunctions between certain events. Consequently, in order to believe in a miracle, we would require evidence that is strong enough to discount or overcome our belief in the regularities of nature.

Hume also contends that testimony is not a reliable source of evidence for miracles. He suggests that people are naturally inclined to exaggeration and fabrication, and their memories can be fallible. Such factors can compromise the accuracy and reliability of firsthand accounts, thereby rendering them insufficient as evidence for miracles. Hume's skepticism about the reliability of testimony implies that we cannot rely on our own experiences to justify our belief that we have witnessed a miracle.

Therefore, if we apply Hume's arguments to our personal experiences of miracles, we might also conclude that our experiences do not provide sufficient evidence to justify our belief that a miracle has occurred. Hume points out that miracles are events that violate the laws of nature, which are grounded in our regular experiences of the world. To establish that a miracle has taken place, we would require evidence that is strong enough to overcome our belief in these laws of nature. Our own experiences might seem compelling to us, but they are not necessarily reliable sources of evidence for miracles.

In conclusion, Hume's arguments in section 10 of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding provide strong reasons for doubting the existence of miracles and the reliability of testimony. If we extend this line of reasoning to our own experiences of miracles, we might conclude that personal experiences are not sufficient to justify our belief that miracles have occurred.

The concept of personal experience being a more trustworthy source than testimony is based on the idea that it is a direct and immediate perception. Unlike relying on someone else's description, witnessing an event firsthand eradicates the need for filters and interpretations by others. As a result, personal experience is deemed less susceptible to errors and biases that are common in testimony.

However, Hume would object to this claim, highlighting that personal experience is still subject to the same limitations as testimony. Our perceptions are susceptible to various factors such as emotions, prior beliefs, and expectations, making them fallible. Just because we perceive an event directly does not necessarily mean we are free from filtering and misinterpretation. We might interpret a phenomenon as miraculous, but in reality, it could be misunderstood or attributed to wishful thinking.

Another argument against personal experience's superiority is the idea that the laws of nature are not fixed and unchanging. What we view as miracles might be natural phenomena that we have not yet discovered or understood. For instance, lightning strikes were once perceived as divine interventions, but we now understand they are a natural occurrence caused by electrical discharge. Similarly, near-death experiences might be explained by the brain's response to lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife. While personal experience can play an essential role in expanding our knowledge of the natural world, Hume would argue that we need robust evidence to support any claim of supernatural occurrence, and personal experience alone is not enough to overcome our belief in the consistency of nature.

Hume's skepticism towards miracles applies to personal experience as well. If we abide by the laws of nature, any personal experience that appears to violate them would be doubtful. For example, witnessing someone rise from the dead is highly unlikely and would require strong proof to justify believing in a miracle.

In conclusion, Hume's arguments suggest that relying solely on testimony to justify belief in a miracle is insufficient due to the potential for errors and flaws. While personal experience might provide more direct and immediate evidence, it is still subject to fallibility and uncertainty. The limitations of our understanding and sources of knowledge highlight the need to approach claims of miraculous events with caution and skepticism, regardless of the source of evidence.