What you say make sense, it is right too.
Not enough sense, apparently.
But are you listening to me?
Of course I'm listening to you. The problem is, you aren't listening to yourself.
A while back, I was pre-reading a story that someone wrote, and I had to tell them that the dialogue sucked; it sounded stilted and unrealistic. I told him to try reading it to himself to see what I meant. He took me more literally than I'd intended and actually recorded himself reading the entire story, then listened to it, and he told me that the experience really helped him understand just what was wrong with his dialogue. So I'm going to suggest that to you - before you write posts like this, read them to yourself, aloud if need be, to see whether what you wrote is really as clear as you thought it was when you originally wrote it.
I am talking about my existence. I know that you can see me, but I could argue that I was only in your imagination. I cannot be only in your head if I moved the tree that you asked me to move.
If I were truly that delusional, I could not trust other things that I seemed to perceive. Maybe the tree was never blocking the road to begin with; maybe I just imagined that it was. See the problem? If the fact of my seeing you is in question, then the fact of my seeing the tree is also in question. Therefore, you cannot use the tree being moved as evidence of your existence, because the tree could have only been in my imagination too.
Let's say that for this example, I moved the tree simply by pushing it out of the way with my bare hands. You didn't see me push it away because you closed your eyes. I come back to the car and tell you to go. All the information you have is you are here, in a car and there was a tree blocking the road that is not there anymore. You "know" that I'm here (since your senses can be fooled). Isn't the fact that the tree is not blocking you anymore after you ask me to move it for you proof enough of my existence? Don't you believe in the existence of stuff with less proof than that?
Even if I would have been willing to simply close my eyes and let you move the tree for me (which is exceedingly doubtful; I would have helped move it), I would have been able to hear you moving the tree. And before you try to revise your example by saying you asked me to cover my ears, I would have point-blank refused someone asking me to close my eyes and cover my ears in a situation like that, no matter how well I knew them.
That aside, my point from earlier stands. If I can be fooled into hallucinating a person offering to move a tree for me, I can be fooled into hallucinating the tree that has to be moved. You cannot use moving the tree as proof of your existence since the only way I knew the tree was there was through those very same senses that you just got done saying could be fooled. So your analogy fails; a miraculous healing does not prove the existence of your god or any other supernatural being when there is no other evidence of that being present where the healing happened.
I know, miracles are not simple mater. It is very complicated to recognize one. It takes time and many people. You have to make sure it is not "luck" of "natural healing" or anything that it could be before claiming it is a miracle.
How many times do I have to tell you that you cannot conclude that something is a divine miracle simply by excluding all known causes for it? Not to mention that then you're constraining your god by saying that anything that has a known cause couldn't have been done by him. More accurately, you're engaging in the god of the gaps fallacy; there is no reason at all to conclude that a divine being could not work through something in the natural world to heal someone rather than just making it happen through unexplainable magic.
It comes back to how would YOU do it? You seem to say that the system in place is not good. I can understand how it can be perceived as flawed when it is looked from afar. But then you can take a little time with your conscience and ask her what would make YOU accept the miracle? Can you trust your senses?
The second you start asking someone what it would take for them to accept something as a miracle, you've pretty much lost the argument. Why should I tell you what it would take for me to accept a miracle? Pray to your god if you want to know; I grant him permission to tell you that and only that. I am an honest person; if you state what your god tells you as a result of this prayer, I will truthfully state what my most basic criteria for "is that a miracle" is. I will not lie in any way. You don't even have to get it perfectly right, since it would be unfair to expect you to phrase it exactly the way I would.
How was the way they declared the miracle as such different to the way YOU would find acceptable?
I cannot answer this without prejudicing my challenge to you, but I can say this. Their criteria, that there must be no known explanation for it to be considered as a possible miracle, is based on the assumption that a natural event cannot have a supernatural cause, which constrains your god to only working miracles through things that have no explanation.