From his definitions of proof, probability, and miracle, Hume concludes, “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony is of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.” What does he mean by this, and why does he think that it proves that, in principle, we cannot ever trust testimony about miracles?