There is no doubt. If you say you met Jesus' 2000 year old mother in a vision, and nobody else could see her, that many would say you are claiming a violation of nature has happened. Many more might merely suspect that if that is not a violation of nature nothing is.
It being a violation does not mean you are going to call it that.
Suppose you were an atheist visionary. You would say it is a violation of nature for there is no higher power to send her or that would send her. You would either say, "My experience was false." Or, "I just don't know. I am still not going to say I believe that violations happen."
Suppose you were a believer. You will say, "God does not lose control of nature so that he has to violate it. It is nature working differently not a violation."
If a miracle is declaring itself to be violation of nature and/or is one by virtue of happening, then there serious problems.
David Hume is commonly twisted as if he said that miracles are a violation of the law of nature and therefore impossible. He in fact said we could believe. He added that the problem is that the evidence is that people lie. So a gold-star standard of evidence is needed to say a miracle may have been real. This is why those who say they believe in miracles in fact do not. They opine. They feel. That is all. There is no justification for going as far as to set up churches and throw your life away in a monastery.
To hold that miracles are a violation of the law of nature and therefore impossible is answered in two ways according to PJ McGrath in page 136, Believing in God. (Most in the Church would say the same thing as him.)
One reply is to say a miracle is not a violation of the law of nature. But this would be to say that a miracle is caused by some natural law we know nothing about. Thus McGrath rejects this one. He says that it denies that miracles can be evidence for the truth of religion for if miracles are just inexplicable but natural then they are not supernatural or necessarily from God. If God used drugs on Jesus to make him seem to die so he could "rise" then that takes the glamour out of this "miracle".
One may argue that, "If gravity suddenly stops, it is not evidence that the law has failed or being defied. It would be evidence that another law has taken over." That raises problems for science. If gravity stops, science may not detect that the law is no longer in force. If gravity stops science will not necessarily detect the law that has overruled it. Even if a law is identified, where is it coming from? The law of gravity could be governed by another that will never be found. Science would have to prepare for the law of gravity being suspended often in the future - just in case. Science would be worthless. Science cannot just guess that gravity is very unlikely to stop for it by default is about evidence not assumptions.
If that is the case with an unknown or unexplainable natural law, it would be worse if we think there are supernatural laws or beings that can change nature.
What matters most about cases that might be called violations is not what they might be, but their appeal to invisible laws.
The other reply is to say that natural law allows for exceptions. PJ McGrath in Believing in God accepts this one not realising that it too is uncompelling. It is saying that a miracle is not a violation of nature and so the miracle could be caused by natural law as well. Also, we use natural laws to make exceptions to many natural laws. For example, when you put your umbrella up you are making an exception of the natural law that you will get wet in the rain.
The exceptions argument is only semantics. If there is a problem with saying a law can take over from gravity, saying a law can break it, there is a problem with using the exceptions thing too. Then you get "Gravity works, except in Melbourne, where somebody shot up into the air." The exception is a law in its own right.
So, if a miracle is not against the laws of nature then it is natural - it is silly to call it a miracle. So it has to be supernatural in the sense that it breaks the law of nature and shows that there is a power that can do that. Trouble is, it then becomes silly for other reasons. You cannot win.
FINALLY
1. Calling a miracle an exception to nature
Contradiction in terms – Nature is defined by consistent laws; calling something an “exception” may be an attempt to cover how it breaks those laws, which undermines the very idea of natural law.
Logical incoherence – If something truly violates natural laws, it cannot be explained scientifically; but labeling it as an “exception” assumes it still somehow belongs to the system.
Slippery slope – Any event could be labeled an “exception,” making the concept of natural law meaningless.
2. Saying a miracle is in line with nature but governed by unknown laws
Unfalsifiability – Claiming unknown laws makes the explanation impossible to test or disprove, reducing scientific credibility.
Special pleading – It arbitrarily reserves certain events as “miraculous” while pretending they follow natural rules, which is inconsistent reasoning.
Avoids the core question – It shifts focus from the extraordinary aspect of the event to speculation about hidden mechanisms, potentially dismissing the phenomenon itself.
McGrath, P. J. Believing in God: Reason and Religious Belief. Dublin: Millington (in association with Wolfhound Press), 1995. ISBN 0863275109.