How are you defining miracle?

is it
(1)"an impossible event, outside or beyond the laws of nature"
OR
(2)"an exceedingly rare or unusual event?"

I find among believers it is almost always (2)

If some God was doing miracles (1), then it is an asshole of the greatest magnitude for failing to save starving and cancer ridden children all over the globe. It must be callous in the extreme for never regenerating a broken spine or lost limb.

But shit happens not by devine inspiration

There are events and occurrences which are inexplicable, they will have a logical explanation, but our understanding is not sufficient to comprehend what that is...so some people call them miracles. But no, .I do not believe they are miracles, merely that we are are uncomprehending of their cause.

A miricle is by definition "magic". Magic is defined as occurances outside the laws of physics. By definition nothing can happen outside the laws of physics. So miracles by definition can not happen.

There are unexplained observations. The existence of such observations does not mean GodDidIt.

(Edited for a missing word: "such" )

Second only to Luck

The funny thing is, there's no way to tell any of the following apart, as they all behave exactly the same:

• A non-interventionist god
• An absent god
• An indifferent god
• A god whose actions are so random and incoherent that they must be excused as "mysterious ways"
• A non-existent god

Of course most gods can find your missing car keys, through the magic of confirmation bias, but that's just a cheap parlor trick. Just try to get one to save a loved one from suffering and death, or something really useful and you'll immediately see the problem.

Anyway ... applying Occam's Razor to the above choices, the most economical explanation is "a non-existent god".

My experience is that strange things happen like synchronicity and serendipity but I have no reference point for which to accredit it.