Yes, people, especially a lot of skeptics, expect divine miracles to be blatantly obvious manifestations of god, or his power… instead of simply beating outrageous odds.
I have always argued that if God exists, his power to change reality would be subtle, and it would come in the form of manipulating chance.
That pesky quantum randomness that mysteriously seems to be causeless… quite inexplicably. Given enough of the same persuasion, Im sure the Newtonian can be influenced… forces will coalesce and waveforms will reinforce, if enough “random” events for some inexplicable reason hold the same “value”, for lack of a better term. And bam, you have a sufficiently strong force applied to Newtonian things.
Now, for God to come down directly and obviously would be contradictory to dogma. But more than that, it would become paradoxical, I think, for such a being to exist/manifest in a Newtonian sense. Atheists criticize god for having self-contradictory attributes, and assuming for a moment that these criticisms dont have rebuttals of their own in interpretation, all it proves is that god is not Newtonian… as self-contradiction is permitted in quantum physics, after all, but the atheist does not reject the science.
Its sort of like the criticism that “can god make a rock too heavy for him to lift?”, supposedly proving that he is in fact not omnipotent, for one reason or another. But the criticism obfuscates a baser semantic issue. What is it to “lift” in the first place? And how can he do such a thing at all without a tangible body with which to lift? Such a body would have to be infinitely massive and infinitely strong. The real question is, “Is God willing to make such a body, or enact an omnipotent ability, that fundamentally contradicts the laws of biology and of physics that he had already set forth at creation?” Or, “is god willing to be a liar or a hypocrite?” The atheistic criticism basically boils down to “your god isnt a liar or a hypocrite, therefore he doesnt exist.”