Do miracles really happen?

Yes — and the most celebrated argument that they can't has a hole in it. David Hume claimed a miracle is a violation of a law of nature, and that the 'uniform experience' of mankind stands against any such thing. In its strongest a-priori form, that begs the question: how do we know experience is uniform except by assuming in advance that no miracle has ever occurred — the very point in dispute? A subtler version of Hume simply says miracles are so improbable that testimony can rarely overcome the odds. That one deserves a real answer rather than a slogan — and it has one.

Start with what a law of nature is: a description of what happens when nature is left to itself. It cannot tell you that nature is all there is, so the 'overwhelming prior against miracles' is really a prior against God acting — which is the question, not the answer. If God exists, an event in which he acts is precisely what we'd expect to look like an 'exception.' So the real issue isn't whether miracles are possible but whether any particular one is well enough attested to believe — and the best-evidenced candidate in history is the resurrection of Jesus, supported by the early testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and the empty tomb. The honest move is to weigh that evidence, not fix the odds before looking.