Perhaps others will cite extensive references, but it ultimately boils down to this: the arguments for the miracles come from the Bible, and the arguments against come from observation of the natural world.

@GeorgeCummins 98% sure that't not exactly true. And while I don't know the docs offhand, I'm reasonably confident Jesus was described as a miracle or "wonder" worker by contemporary secular historians. But maybe more convincing is the fact that all of His close followers were prepared to die in His Name. Not something you'd expect if it was all a bunch of exaggeration. And that's not exactly evidence "from the Bible." More like historical + psychological evidence.

@svidgen I encourage you to try to find credible non-biblical accounts of that nature. There are many documents of dubious credibility that mention miracle workers both before and after the time of Jesus (Simon Magus, Apollonius). You can even find people that claim the likes of modern-day preachers such as Oral Roberts as miracle workers. As for the willingness of the disciples to die for the cause, there are many people willing to die for many causes (I'm thinking of the 19 firefighters who recently died for the sake of others). That's not necessarily evidence of "truth."

@GeorgeCummins Credibility is largely in the eye of the beholder, unfortunately. And it's absurd to gloss over all forms of self-sacrifice so hastily. Martyrs for Christ explicitly attest with their lives to a Truth. That's evidence. Convincing to you personally or not; it's evidence. Firefighters who lose their lives saving others attest to something (still a Truth, mind you) in a very different way.

@svidgen Credibility is at the core of the question. The Bible (and people talking about the Bible) say Jesus performed miracles (things which are impossible according to the observable order of things). It would appear that the OP is asking for a way to establish the credibility of the Biblical account. To dismiss it as something that exists primarily in the eye of the beholder is to dismiss hundreds of years of research and study. And (though the discussion of martyrs is in danger of ranging widely off-topic), isn't it less sensible to raise one form of martyrdom above all others?

@achillez16 You may be more likely to elicit an answer if you narrow this question down to either evidence for (apologetics?) the miracles or for common arguments against them. But not both. That seems like a bit much to cram into one comprehensive answer.

@svidgen Yea! We agree on something. ;)

@GeorgeCummins I suspect we'll have to take this into chat soon ... but, I don't mean to dismiss the need to establish credibility at all. Only the need to establish the credibility of each resource independently. ... If there's any objective measure of the credibility of historical documents it's corroboration. You don't determine the credibility of sources A .. Z independently. You line them up and look for overlap. Hence, anything that agrees with the Biblical accounts necessarily increases the credibility of both sources simultaneously.

And in that regard (speaking of corroboration again), the Bible is already a fairly credible resource in itself -- because it's not one source. It's a collection of corroborating sources. If it didn't deal with "meaning of life" stuff and "hard to believe" stuff, it would probably be the most credible collection of works on the planet.

@GeorgeCummins Not sure if you had anything else to add. But, this discussion is too long and unrelated to improving the Q for the comments section as -is.

This is definitely a discussion that I want to have. However, given the amount of references that must be given and checked to support such a discussion, would you be willing to conduct it via email, forum or other long-form, asynchronous style? That way we won't feel obligated to give quick answers in favor of correct ones.

@svidgen "If it didn't deal with "meaning of life" stuff and "hard to believe" stuff, it would probably be the most credible collection of works on the planet." Oh, my, not in my view. 2000-5000 year old writings that have been translated multiple times, and edited by councils...for me, personally, the word "credibility" doesn't really spring to mind.