Can't prove the supernatural God

[Mister Agenda]

I will say that it is very reasonable to look for a natural explanation before positing a miracle happened since our experience does support that that is the case in almost all events. 

Let's cut to the chase. You think the description of miracles in the NT is untrue and therefore provide no support for the existence of miracles. Can you prove them to be untrue? No, you can give reasons why you think so. I think there are reasons to believe that it is true, so I think miracles happen. 

So, why would I bring them up instead of some modern example? As I said above to Mister Agenda, I think the modern claims of miracles are over done. That is not to say I think that they do not happen. The miracles of the NT were of a different type. These were big, purposeful, witnessed, had theological significance. We do not see these types of miracles anymore. This is also a reason I am not going to argue if so and so's brain tumor disappeared as a result of supernatural intervention. These types are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) theological significance.

They were big, purposeful, witnessed, and had theological significance. According to the stories about them.

The same can be said about the miracles attributed to Krishna (and still being attributed to him today).

These kinds of stories are readily available and widely believed about all sorts of figures.

The ancient world was a place where miracles were always happening just the next town over, and you knew that because some traveler told you a story about it, and you had no clue why you shouldn't take it at face value. If it was a good enough story, you'd tell someone else.

If you were a devout Hindu who revered Krishna, what would be different about your claims besides the details?