A major point of contention between various Theists and Deists is the existence of supernatural events. This includes miracles, divine intervention necessary to prove certain Theist narratives. However, supernatural events cannot be proven with certainty due to the epistemic limits we have. While many may argue that failing to explain in event in naturalistic terms implies the existence of a supernatural event, this is often fallacious.
Supernatural events are defined as events which are beyond the laws of nature. They cannot be explained in natural terms since their causality is beyond them. The issue this presents is that it challenges what humans can understand about the world we live in. Natural events can be explained fairly easily because we can understand the cause-and-effect relationship that underlines them. If I were to throw a rock at a window, we could understand that the cause of the window breaking was the contact made between it and the rock. We lack this underlying knowledge with supernatural events.
Suppose instead if the window were to break on it's own with no visible cause. Perhaps one could claim that it is a transcendent being attempting to demonstrate it's ability to perform the supernatural. Would we then be forced to conclude the existence of a supernatural event, since we would have no rational explanation? No, because we would be assuming something we can't prove. We would be assuming that a natural explanation does not exist for the phenomena we observed.
What we would know in that circumstance is that we do not have a complete explanation currently. There could be any number of natural causes we may not have accounted for. The window may have broken due to it's fragility, or it may have broken due to some sound we did not observe. There exists a fundamental gap for us to attribute the supernatural to any event. That fundamental gap is often bridged by faith, but faith does not constitute proof.
Theists may be dissatisfied with this argument, as I've left no eligible criteria for supernatural events to be proven. That is the point I'm trying to get across here. I do not claim that supernatural events do not exist, but only that we cannot prove them. In fact, if supernatural events could be proven, they would cease to have supernatural status. We would then instead have a explanation for them in natural [explainable] terms. There is an inherent folly in trying to prove something beyond what we can know. Even worse if one's worldview is based on the existence of unprovable assumptions. There is good reason to be distrustful of supernatural events based on what has been discussed above.
Luckily, the case for God does not depend on historical, supernatural events but can be argued for through logical means.