Naturalists claim their worldview is based entirely upon evidence. They assert that they would accept miracles if evidence was presented, but that no evidence has been presented. However, when you look into their methodology, you see that this is false. Ask any Naturalist how they would know if a miracle has occurred, very few of them actually give an answer.
As a matter of fact, I have only personally received one attempted answer, and it was so absurd that this person could have seen Jesus rise from the dead, and even affirmed that it happened, while remaining an atheist. His answer was that he would only believe a miracle had occurred if all possible natural explanations, including ones we haven't thought about yet, have been eliminated.
This obviously flawed logic is the only answer I have ever received from a Naturalist, and yet, as you can see, it is so unreasonable that this person could see a genuine miracle every day of his life and never acknowledge it.
Ironically, with basically no evidence, he does believe in Evolution, which is so impossible that it may as well be classified as a miracle. So, I thought it would be worth applying his own logic. I will believe in Evolution on the same grounds as he will accept a miracle. If all other explanations have been eliminated, including the ones I have not yet thought of, I will believe in Evolution. Until then, I remain a Christian.
As I said, this is the only answer I have ever heard from a Naturalist regarding when we can know that a miracle has happened. But the very philosophy of Naturalism is explicitly designed to exclude supernatural explanations. It's even in the name: natural - ism. In other words, if it's not natural, it's not true. The Naturalist seeks a natural explanation for all things, even if the answer is not natural. If a Naturalist examined the miracles in the Bible, he would search for natural explanations. If he can find one, it doesn't matter how implausible it is, he will run with it. If he can't find one, he will chalk it up to the limits of human knowledge. There is a natural explanation, but we aren't advanced enough to know what it is yet. The miraculous is excluded, even if it is the right answer, purely because only the natural is acceptable.
The extreme closed-mindedness of Naturalism is its greatest flaw. By limiting the range of acceptable answers, it necessarily rules out the possibility of answers which a reasonable person would consider at least plausible. Naturalists must also claim to be almost omniscient. From the very beginning, they must claim to know that the supernatural does not exist, which is not something that can ever be proven or disproven using natural means.
The more reasonable mind does not rule out a conclusion because it is undesirable. Rather, it follows the evidence where it leads, to the most plausible conclusion. Currently, the most plausible conclusion is that which allows both science and Christianity to co-exist: That an orderly God made an orderly world. This also fits in with historical evidence that the Lord became incarnate in human flesh, being conceived in the womb of a virgin, living a sinless life, dying on the cross, and rising again on the third day. There is no plausible natural explanation for the resurrection, but the evidence suggests it happened. You might reasonably call this a miracle, but it is far more than that. It is a gift from God to mankind, an olive branch from the King against whom we have committed treason. By confessing Jesus as Lord, and believing in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we receive not only forgiveness for the many sins we have committed, but also gain an inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, where we shall live as children of God for all eternity.