How would you analyse miracles?

Another answer from our community:

I would start with a preliminary definition. A miracle is: a striking and religiously significant intervention of God in the system of natural causes. Note two things here: (1) the concept of miracles presupposes, rather than sets aside, the idea that nature is a self contained system of natural causes. Unless there are regularities, there can be no exception to them. (2) A miracle is not a contradiction. A man walking through a wall is a miracle. A man both walking and not walking through a wall at the same time and in the same respect is a contradiction. God can perform miracles but not contradictions-not because His power is limited, but because contradictions are meaningless.

This analysis raises two important questions to consider regarding miracles. (1) Are miracles possible?-from the historical question-Are miracles actual? Has there ever really been such an intervention? The answer to the second question requires a knowledge of events in history. It also requires not philosophical, but historical investigation. What the believer and the philosopher can do is argue for the possibility of miracles. For nearly all those people who deny that miracles have actually happened have done so to prove that miracles cannot happen.

Obviously, you cannot believe miracles have happened without believing that a miracle worker exists. Thus all who believe in miracles believe in some kind of God. But not everyone who believes in God believes in miracles. If there is a God, miracles are possible. That is how I would analyse miracles.