...I don't treat the things of God via science, and learned that it is not always wise to try to use "proof" to let people know in terms of documentating miracles.
While I agree with arach's statement that miracles cannot be "proven", what's wrong with investigating them scientifically? Don't you think it would be a tremendous draw to Jesus if some miracles were highly docmumented? If enough evidence is provided for the "non-naturalness" of the occurance a majority of people would believe in its supernaturalness.
Didn't Jesus himself use miracles to draw in unbelievers?
"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me."
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me..."
...believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
I would think that if it is good enough for Jesus to use miracles as a lure, then it should be good enough for the Church today. Kind of surprising that they don't try harder to show off the miracles that do happen.