Criteria for miracles

There's an important distinction that's often lost sight of in the debate over miracles:

i) If the question at issue is whether miracles happen at all, then it makes sense for a Christian philosopher/apologist to use very strict criteria for a miracle. He only cites examples that meet the strictest criteria. Where the evidence is so strong that no reasonable person would deny a miracle. 

ii) However, having established that miracles do occur, it is artificial to apply such restrictive criteria to every candidate. It's not as if God only performs miracles in situations that meet stringent conditions for verification. In many cases, God will perform a miracle because there's a need, and not to prove anything, although that's a fringe benefit. It's not as if God is going to withhold a miracle unless it checks all the boxes on our philosophical criteria. So many reported miracles may be credible even though the evidence falls short of the screening process we use to determine whether that happens at all.