I think this is a different line of reasoning from the one everyone else is on. Hume seems to be saying that there's no such thing as evidence at all, there's j

I think this is a different line of reasoning from the one everyone else is on. Hume seems to be saying that there's no such thing as evidence at all, there's just a sequence of unrelated events. But faith (in the Christian sense, at least) is believing something apart from, or in spite of, evidence, whereas reason is believing something because of evidence. Point being, both of them require that the concept of evidence has some value. So saying that there is no evidence for _anything_ does not support faith (again, in the Christian sense); it undermines them both. It's like that quote from the movie The Incredibles: "When everyone's super, no one will be."