The Handbook of Christian Apologetics says as God is not living in his own dimension and uninvolved with ours, he shows he is interactive by doing miracles.  So this leads to its argument for God number 9, "Miracles show that God exist but they must take place in some religious context to show this.  Miracles are not a proof for God but a sign or clue."
Reason replies: 
Is a clue enough when people follow a faith that demands that you be willing to die for it and tell people they are at risk of going to eternal hell for it?

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t investigate and declare authentic, miracle claims outside this Roman Catholic context so for it to say that miracles show its teaching is from God is for it to lie for it ignores anything that doesn’t fit what it wants to believe. So miracles are going to be ignored if they fall outside the God context or religious context according to this Handbook. This translates as, “Miracles are not evidence for what we believe unless they fit what we believe”. That is a totally bigoted and dishonest and even approach.

Thankfully the Handbook shows us that it is up to us to decide if a miracle is a sign or not. In daily life, we all interpret signs and clues differently from others. It is a natural and nice thing about being human. It follows then that Christians should not make as much of the resurrection of Jesus as a sign as they do.

Miracles, changes in the law of nature such as a statue coming to life, are said to prove that God exists.

But it is more likely that the witnesses are lying or deceived than that such a change really happened because making mistakes and telling lies is commoner. So, it seems that a miracle may only be believed if it is irrefutable.

When a miracle is accepted as a true miracle it is only accepted because there is no evidence against it. But once you do that you have to believe all miracles and it is not that hard to create a fake but irrefutable one. One could be done to prove that there is a weak devil but not a God.

God cannot do miracles to prove his existence for then he would be stupid for it won’t work. He would be doing silly miracles if he does them so we would not know what to make of them and their implications. Moreover, when belief is not a free act God would not need to present miracles as evidence for religion.

The Handbook of Christian Apologetics claims that though it gives a proof from miracles for God that there is no proof from miracles for you have to believe in God before you can interpret the miracle as a sign from him (page 65). From this it follows that there is no evidence that God has spoken even if God exists. Yet this incoherent book devotes some chapters to proving that God has spoken in Jesus and in the Bible! It could be that God is not all-powerful and has only very limited power left to change nature and so he uses it sparingly though he has the power to change hearts which is a different power. In that case, miracles are only intended to steer the domino effect of events in the world in a new direction and are not meant to be messages of what doctrine is true though they are taken to be messages. The Church just guesses that miracles support it and is lying when it uses them to pull in the converts. This argument counts against any argument for God from religious experience. It is extreme blasphemy to say that Jesus was God if you deny that miracles are proof for anything for then you might as well say your grandfather was God and you need very good evidence before you can make such an assertion.

Nobody tells you that if miracles happen then this happens.  "I have ten workers.  I know one of them is a thief.  I do not know which one. There is a report that a man rose from the dead.  Is the miracle that the man rose?  Is the miracle that the report holds up though it is false?"  Miracles are ideological and arrogant.

No Copyright