What's fun is the constantly shifting goalposts of the libs/atheists.
Everything is regular: Occam's razor, there are uniform causes, therefore no need to question a closed system. ("If there were a God, He's reveal Himself through miracles.")
Miracle happens: "That doesn't count:
1. it wasn't under controlled conditions
2. it wasn't observed by specialists, only by common people who are given to [various generalized ad hominem descriptions which are *themselves* unsubstantiated]
3. the textual descriptions are uncertain, and were not reported immediately in a properly peer-reviewed journal
4. there are charlatans, who fake miracles for money. this instance purports to be a miracle. therefore if the witnesses are acting in good faith, they were merely deceived by a charlatan."
The problem isn't that there is "no evidence" : it is that they reject the evidence at hand as not being of sufficient quality / quantity to allow them to apply "scientific principles" (e.g. Occam's razor, null hypothesis).
But they don't realize that science doesn't give you "the TRUTHTM" but instead is a tool for pruning existing models to eliminate false positives.
It doesn't do such a good job on false negatives: for in matters of the supernatural, the skeptic tends to conflate a Scottish Law verdict of "not proven" with "necessarily false."
And, similar to the glee with which atheists and 'higher thinkers' tend to attack sola scriptura ("just pull on this one loose end and the whole thing unravels!"), so too, they cannot allow *any* tinge of the supernatural, or their whole materialistic faith unravels.
Cheers!
Great analysis of the situation.