Hume and Miracles

Even as someone who believes in miracles, I applaud Hume's skepticism of them. I think a lot of people just throw the idea of "miracle" around to explain away things that are unlikely, lucky, or, well, hard to explain. Hume makes some good points on the issue and kind of restores miracles back to a higher concept in a sense.
I've heard so many people say things like "I found the book I needed even though the clerk assured me they didn't carry it! It's a miracle!" or "I aced that test and I didn't even study for it, what a miracle!" As Hume states, miracles are not only unlikely events, but are something that necessarily violates some law of nature. If the person in the first scenario had the book suddenly appear out of thin air and land in his/her hands, that would be more like a miracle. Of course, no one would be likely to believe that person, which is another point of Humes- to evaluate the witness and to weigh that with the likeliness of what they are saying.
I have met people who have actually claimed miracles in their lives, things like cancer going away and healing and stuff like that. In most of those cases though I haven't known the person well enough to judge their character, their reliability. And being in the position I'm in, I would have no proof of what their situation was before or even exactly what happened.
Basically, there are a lot of reasons to doubt and debunk miracles. Hume says that even though he is not saying there are no miracles, we should at least agree that there isn't any proof of miracles. Which in his mind means that we shouldn't believe in them, but I will have to be a little stubborn here, because as someone who is continually amazed and surprised in life, I am going to keep believing in the possibility of miracles.