In the header image, you see a meme that represents the extreme end of a very common atheist argument. God, according to the maker of this meme, mysteriously ceased to perform miracles once man was able to record and document events.
The main flaw with the meme should be obvious. If man was not able to record miracles, we would have no record of those miracles. We wouldn't be able to have this discussion if there was any truth in the meme.
Although this meme in particular is so embarrassingly flawed that whoever made it should be discouraged from owning up to its publication, it does represent a common atheist argument that at least has some sanity. While God obviously did not cease to perform miracles, specifically "spectacular" miracles, when man learned to record and document events, it does appear that He has at least ceased to do them today. Thus, atheists argue, any actual miraculous event that was recorded may well have been misinterpreted by our superstitious ancestors, and we see less miracles today because we have reasonable explanations for that which would have been a miracle attributed to God in the past. There are three main flaws with this argument. The first is philosophical, the second historical and the third theological.
The philosophical flaw with the argument is the bias of atheists, and the fact that their philosophy will often, if not always, confirm itself. If an atheist saw a miracle, how would they know? Increasingly, atheistic apologists are admitting that they simply wouldn't. Richard Dawkins, for example, admitted that if God rearranged the stars so they spelled out "Richard Dawkins, believe in me", he would sooner believe intelligent and powerful aliens were tricking him than that God was actually involved. Therefore, even a legitimate miracle, which could well happen today, would not be sufficient for atheists. Indeed, many miracles have been recorded since the closing of the canon, even up to the modern day, which atheists would not accept. A natural explanation would always be sought, even if it could not be found, and if it could not be found, atheists would simply invoke the "God of the gaps" defence to avoid classifying a genuine miracle as a genuine miracle.
The historical problem is that although miracles do appear to be common in the Bible, they're actually not. A miracle may also be called a "sign". Usually, God would send miracles to authenticate the ministry of a prophet bringing a new message. What atheists fail to realise is that though the Bible is one book today, this was not always the case. It is actually a collection of books written over a span of 1,400 years, documenting around 4,000 years (some of which, of course, is from God's point of view). Even a lot of the people who saw the most spectacular miracles, or communicated directly with God, were just normal people living normal lives for quite some time. Job, for example, is estimated to have been around 70 years old, and yet when he finally spoke to God, he said "I have heard of you by ear, but now my eyes see you" (Job 42:5, emphasis mine). Despite being a prominent figure in the Bible, Job hadn't seen anything particularly spectacular up to that point. His faith up until that point was no different than a Christian today. Probably stronger, as it's not like he could just Google scholarly discussions about God.
So what we see is that God's most spectacular miracles were not especially common even in the past. They appear common in the Bible because the Bible is 4,000 years condensed into a book that can be read in less than one. This leads us to the theological problem: why did God stop? Or, more accurately, why did God start? As I noted earlier, a miracle can be more accurately described as a sign. It is, in effect, God showing you His passport. The world as we know it is a very well-oiled machine. Everything works as it is supposed to. When God suspends those workings, it is because He has a purpose for doing so. That purpose may be the creation of the universe in the first place, or the salvation of a critical family, or the foundation of a nation, or the revelation of new information, or any number of other things. When God does not have a purpose in mind that would require a miracle, there is no need to perform a miracle, and thus God just leaves things alone. If anything, His constant interference would result in confusion, because we wouldn't have a clue which parts of nature were supposed to be that way and which parts are just God playing games. "Hmm, I dropped a coin, but is that gravity, or is that God performing another miracle?" Even as a Christian, this is not the kind of world I would like to live in. I prefer a rational world in which science is a possibility.
Of course, the most significant miracle in all of history is the resurrection. God doesn't just raise people willy nilly today because He never did. When a person was raised, there was always a reason, and when that person was Jesus, that was the most important miracle of all time. The resurrection did not merely authenticate a prophet, reveal a new doctrine or support a theological cause. Rather, it guarantees eternal life. When Jesus died, He received the full wrath for our sins. When He rose, He became the first to be raised to life. A time will come when all who confess Him as Lord and believe He rose will also be resurrected. That may be in a decade, or it may be in a millennium, or it may even be longer than that, but it will happen. That's something you want to be on board with. Therefore, rather than asking why God doesn't often perform miracles today, start looking into the ones He has already done. Asking for more is stubbornness and greed.