Many miracles have been thoroughly investigated by organisations that have no incentive to disprove the miracle - an example is the Catholic Church. They were involved in investigating, and proving true the miracle at Lourdes , where a young girl was healed by the water from the fountain there.
As David Hume, famous philosopher, once said, most witnesses to 'miracles' are uneducated people, which means we don't have any reliable proof that 'miracles take place.
The Argument from Miracles proves the existence of God. For example, when Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish in the Bible. This miracle has no natural explanation, therefore it is a supernatural event. Since only God is above nature - transcendent, this must be His act.
While the First Cause Argument may seem plausible on the surface, it has one major flaw. If nothing comes from nothing, where did God come from? If God is eternal, then this completely contradicts the First Cause Argument.
The First Cause argument is evidence enough for any atheists or agnostics that God exists. It is near impossible to deny that nothing comes from nothing. If this is true, the the universe must have come from somewhere - God.
The theory of Evolution can completely disprove the existence of God. See, Richard Dawkins once said that the living results of natural selection impress us with the illusion of design.
The theory of Evolution does not hold the answer to everything - evolution and God could be compatible. Evolution can't explain how the universe came to be in the first place - that is where God comes in.
The theory of evolution is so compelling, which makes me think God does not exist, but God could be compatible, say if each day in the creation story was taken to mean x million years...
Miracle healings are simply the result of 'mind over matter', and not the intervention of God. In the case of Lourdes, for example, it was not God who healed the girl, it was her faith.
Perhaps the universe 'just is', as Bertrand Russell said; it is eternal and has always existed. Then there is no need for a 'first cause' (God).
It seems to me that both of them could be right - maybe the universe always existed . But then again, the Biblical evidence suggests against it...
Yet this cannot be true - there is Biblical evidence to prove this. In the Genesis it is mentioned that only God is before the universe - He must have created it.
You may think this, however the concept of God is unnecessary and not evidence-based. God is an ancient concept that was invented to solve our problems a long time ago. With science, it is no longer needed.
God must exist - all of these arguments prove this. The design argument, First Cause argument, argument from miracles and so much more!
Hmm...I'm still undecided - there's so many compelling arguments for and against!