If miracles happen, they don’t mean somebody can be raised from the dead or has been or will be.
Bringing a person back could be impossible for some reason. We don’t know the miracle rule book. If you have a place where everybody gets healed of sickness, that does not mean you can take a dead person there and have them restored to life. Against this it will be said that if God can create you from nothing he can raise you. But nobody says he can make two of you at the one time. If he has set us up to go out of existence forever at death or turn into some kind of life force that is recycled then resurrection does not happen.
Given that you need quality evidence for a miracle claim, you need a higher bar of evidence for such a big thing as somebody rising from the dead. And higher again if that somebody is to be our saviour and to be with us forever. Even if there is such evidence, be wary of Christianity for it shows little concern for it.
Miracles are validated in a careless incomplete way that is more talk than anything else - when you listen carefully enough. The believer decides what their belief system is. The believer is sceptical and dismissive of any miracle that contradicts it. For example, do you think Catholicism would change its doctrine if Krishna was appearing and millions were cured by him?
You have no right to just validate and look at miracles that suit your religious tastes. The miracle of Krishna’s statue levitating needs the same weighing as the miracle of John’s cure at Lourdes by Mary. Yet people pick and choose.
So for honesty's sake you need to look at a miracle claim, even a resurrection claim, and come up with all the ways it might have happened without it being a miracle. Maybe the person died and the risen person is a lookalike. There are endless possibilities. Then you look to see what is left standing. Is it an actual resurrection? Then you have to show the evidence for it.
You may say, "But that is a tremendous amount of work! It would mean being open-minded and examining a miracle not because of what it says or its potential spiritual value - but because you can investigate it. Then you eliminate all the possibilities. Could anything natural have been going on? Paranormal? Supernatural? What exactly then did it supposedly do? Maybe the miracle is not in how 500 saw a statue come alive, but in how memories of a false event were planted in them? If what is left is a miracle, you affirm it. That is a very grudging negative way to approach a miracle."
If something demands hard work, then if you think it is too much that is your problem. It is not about you.
And the process of elimination could be done in some form. Better to get each possibility partly covered. But we get little or nothing. Picking one or two explanations and eliminating them is not enough and it is dishonest to say it is. Yet that is how religion proceeds when proposing a miracle for rational belief.
If God wants to speak through a miracle he has done, he can help ensure the process of elimination will work for you. And he has the power to bless through it! And if you think the process is too reluctant and clinical that is your problem.
David Hume said that miracle claim is most likely to be a lie or a mistake. He did not say that miracles never happen. He said that human nature is too careless with such claims. His argument is against people as witnesses of miracles rather than miracles as such.
Christians interject: "Hume is said to confuse probability and evidence. In other words, he should see that the evidence can show that something improbable happened. By definition that includes something miraculous." Yes but there is a difference between somebody swimming a channel at a speed considered impossible up to now and somebody vanishing on one side to materialise on a shore on the other side. The first is still natural. And as for the miracle, perhaps the person has gone out of existence and what appears on the other shore is a duplicate. A miracle is made absurd and dangerous by how you can never say what the actual miracle has done. If a cancer is cured maybe the miracle was the cancer itself that should not have happened - and the cure which seems to be the miracle is not. The argument the Christians make is dishonest and that is reason enough to agree with Hume about human nature.
Hume asserted that you can never rule out natural explanations when confronted with a seeming miracle. For that he is accused of circular reasoning or making up his mind before looking at the evidence or facts. But believers are being dishonest again. They say a miracle can only be believed and never proven. So natural explanations cannot be eliminated.
They despise Hume for saying that no miracle is believable. A miracle could be believable but not believable enough to count. It may still not justify the creation of a religion. Nobody talks about that. And what if it is the evidence itself says that a particular miracle is believable? Believers want you to hold that miracles are possible. If so then there could be a believable miracle that nobody has noticed or thought of that rules out a miracle you think is believable. What if Satan was seen by a couple of witnesses who wrote nothing turning Jesus back into a dead man?
Many events are very improbable – before they happen! Finding a gold ring worth a fortune in the turkey's belly is not likely at all but that does not mean it did not happen or that the person saying it happened is lying or mistaken. An event being rare is not the same as it being unbelievable. It's improbability as in being rare does not mean the evidence for it is probably wrong. These points show that naturally explainable wonders do happen and many of these are unnoticed so an amazing miracle may not be the miracle you think.
If religion were writing that paragraph, it would leave the last sentence out.
The fact that human nature will not do the assessing of a miracle claim THOROUGHLY is enough to stop God raising somebody as a sign of salvation. If he raises somebody then he will see no point in trying to ask us to believe. Doing the work to look good and honest is not an option. You may as well do nothing. Do the work correctly.
Now we will never have the resurrection explanation being the last one standing. If miracles happen you never know if the person’s death was a miracle illusion. Or what kind of miracle made the person seem to come back. The possibilities are endless. You will never think of them all. At least there is a stopping point if you think of the natural possibilities.
We conclude that the irrationality of believing somebody came back from the dead in a resurrection is worse than that or any other miracle such as a healing. Your options now are agnosticism or denial. But basing religions on miracles as if they are in any way believable is out. Religion should not have the position in society it has.
Just to be clear, irrationality is an untruth. If you say you believe x when in fact you are only guessing it that is a lie at worst and an untruth at best.