Can't prove the supernatural God

[Esquilax]

The very definition of a supernatural event make detecting and investigating the cause logically impossible. So we are only left with the result and the context. 

Continuing to ignore the validity of the events for the purposes of a philosophical discussion...

Perhaps you are right for one event. If there were hundreds of similar events and other events that illustrated power over matter, life and death, knowledge that should not have been available, etc., the contextual interpretation becomes become stronger and the probability increases that supernatural forces are at play. This would all be in addition to the fact that Jesus clearly explained the source of this power--which at the very least lends additional context clues.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong here: increasing the number of events in which a given cause is asserted in no way influences what the cause of those events actually is. Allow me to demonstrate: here's a magician, and he says he's doing magic. Do you believe him? He just sawed that woman in half!

Okay, now let me take you to this magician's convention. There's hundreds of magicians, and they all claim to be doing magic! Whoa, that guy just uncoupled those rings! Are you inclined to increase the probability of magic now? After all, the criteria are exactly the same as your Jesus analogy: you can't personally explain the events, there's an asserted cause that seems to align with the event, and hundreds of similar events are happening, each of them clearly explained to you as magic... so is it magic? Has the fact that hundreds of people are saying it was magic somehow improved the odds in an objective sense?

And if that's not good enough for you, I've got the proprietor of this nice pyramid scheme you should look into, who swears he has thousands of satisfied business partners...

I mean, hell, my time traveler idea fits just as well into your fallacious reasoning too: of course there are hundreds of examples of miracles, the time traveler has gone back in time to fill the role of Jesus in a closed time loop, thus making his religion seem more true so his bible company gets more business! My question remains unanswered: how do you ascribe a higher probability to a cause you cannot detect or even show is possible, over those other ones? Thus far, all you've done is appeal to taking the assertions of the narrative seriously because they were asserted, and that's simply ridiculous.