i think it was asimov (or was it clarke?) who noted that there is no difference between miracles andd sufficiently advanced technology.
in any case, i think miracles are different from the "existence" (whatever that means) of some "god" (whatever that means).
to argue that we believe in miracles only because we are credulous (i believe this is true) is not to argue that there is not god. it may argue that there is no god who performs miracles (because if there were such a god, there would, of course, be miracles), but that is not the same thing.
the only way it seems to me to be even remotely coherent when talking about god is to stop doing so as if theology or philosophy of religion were science, that is, not to use god as the explanation for otherwise inexplicable events or situations (shall we call them "facts"?). the fact that human beings have historically done just this does not mean that there is no being (or something) that might reasonably be called god, as long as we all know what we mean by that term.
but this of course is exactly why i call myself an atheist. the existence (or non-existence) of such a god at no time and in no way impinges on my day-to-day life. it is not a knowledge-claim. it is more like saying, i am not a theist -- more, i am opposed to theism. i do not believe in the theist god. deism, maybe. but i don't call it agnosticism because i find that, well, ok, honestly, it's spineless. "oooh, i don't know". whatever. neither does anyone else. what do you *do*? how do you *act*?
anyway, sorry. this is probably way beyond uninteresting, by now. but it all gets so far under my skin.
peace
j
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead