It is quite rational to embrace and defend the existence of the “miraculous”. The very existence of God Himself is supernatural, i.e. ‘above’ or ‘outside’ the natural. This would limit the number of those who deny the existence of miracles to only the most staunch of atheists. Agnostics and liberal “Christians” would be forced to deny the existence of a ‘miraculous’ God in order to deny the existence of miracles themselves. It is quite reasonable to assume that a God who is himself a miracle and a “wonder” would by His very manner and nature, engage in miraculous or “supernatural” behavior. This is rational when the examination of miracles really involves a proper definition whereby one law supersedes another, namely the law of God-like behaviour outranks the law of natural behaviour. An example of this would be enabling the buoyancy of a human and the supporting buoyancy of water to permit that human to balance upright and engage in motion atop the water level . i.e. to “walk” on water.
Atheists like to use the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. This phrase seems to suit the atheist well when he is the one defining what “extraordinary” is. But if a theist was to assert that the atheist’s proposition that in all the universe on all the planets among all things and beings seen and unseen that there was nothing among all of them that was or could be categorized as “god” – was an even more extraordinary claim than the theist claiming that God did exist, then the burden of proof could be placed on the atheist to provide “extraordinary evidence” that a God does not exist. This flawed argument of claim vs evidence is used to discount the existence of miracles and the ‘super’ natural altogether when in reality it is just a matter of defining “extraordinary” which in the case of miracles is as ordinary as many of the claims of the skeptic.