> What are called "miracles" are simply disruptions of natural progression by influence of something outside of or above nature.
How do you know that is a thing?
> There's nothing scientific that states that there is nothing outside of this black box we call nature other than a simple creed.
Claiming something to be true only because it has not been disproven is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. Believing something based on a fallacy is not rational.
Miracles are not the root of why I consider Christianity to be rational. They're a possibility; a side-effect, not a proof.
One of the foundational arguments I have is - our existence. We have no business being here, the mass we're made of, the energy we use, the time we experience, the big bang that started it all, the heat death that is coming, the couple-dozen constants that make our reality possible, and the very credible answer to it all found from one tiny nation in which one man claims to be God, and more perplexingly, does the exact opposite of what any other man claiming to be God would do - rather than climbing to the top, he surrenders his life and dies. The unexpected answer to the thousands of accounted years of animal sacrifices that the Tanak was pointed to. Despite being written over thousands of years by dozens of authors, the Bible is consistent in its message.
I'm simply leaving the possibility of their being more than nature open and finding that opening filled. That's part of why I find it rational.
> Miracles are not the root of why I consider Christianity to be rational.
That's not how this works. If you make the claim that some system of beliefs is rational, you have taken on the burden of proof that central claims of that system of beliefs are rational.
> They're a possibility; a side-effect, not a proof.
No, they are a central claim of the system of beliefs that you claimed to be rational.
> I'm simply leaving the possibility of their being more than nature open and finding that opening filled. That's part of why I find it rational.
Could you define what you mean by "rational"?
As for that middle paragraph of yours ... I'm sorry, but that mostly suggests that you haven't even tried to understand the counter-arguments. It's a pile of well-known fallacies that really shouldn't be that hard to figure out if you cared. Those arguments have been used and refuted for ages.
How do you know that is a thing?
> There's nothing scientific that states that there is nothing outside of this black box we call nature other than a simple creed.
Claiming something to be true only because it has not been disproven is a fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. Believing something based on a fallacy is not rational.