It seems that in most of philosophical history, the attention of the word miracle has referred to a direct violation of a law of nature.
It would, however, be naive to not notice how religious coincidences often underpin the reasons for many people believing in god. A religious coincidence is simply an event that is deemed religiously significant but also unlikely. More crucially, these events do not violate any laws of nature.
R.F. Holland, as described here gives the example of a train stopping right before a baby on a track.
By coincidence, the engineer faints at just the right moment, releasing his hand on the control lever, which causes the train to stop automatically.
His mother, a believer, attributes this to God’s design and providence. Should these kinds of events be considered miracles? The IETP miracle criticizes this account since the notion of a miracle now depends upon how a person views an event, and not the event itself. But surely, correlations, especially significant ones, are often the first step in finding a cause for things.
A person winning the lottery multiple times gets us to search for a cause. Why can’t something be done in the case of a religiously significant miracle?