You aren't addressing the question I asked. Lack of evidence results in your not knowing. Yet you are choosing (apparently) to presume the negative. Why? Why not simply accept ad remain agnostic?
And I think that you are getting this quite backwards.
On every other subject under the sun, we typically take a complete lack of evidence to mean that something does not exist.
There's a huge lack of evidence for fire-breathing dragons -- so we don't fear them, and we don't have to pay to keep knights on standby to kill them for us.
If there were evidence that magic happens, and can be used by malicious people, we would have to hunt down those who can wield those powers to prevent them doing so -- before they use their powers against us. We humans used to believe that -- and we did murder lots of slightly batty but essentially innocent people because of it.
You say that miracles are "very, very rare." In my 73 years, I've never seen a single one, nor heard of one for which there were not reasonably plausible explanations. On the other hand, I've been shown the evidence for a bunch of phony ones -- especially among phony "faith healers" like Benny Hinn and others.
And in fact, most people who are genuinely ill go first to their doctor, and seek a science-based cure. And why would they finally resort to someone like Hinn? Because the sad truth is that science is a human product, and we can't do everything. We have no cure for death. But the vast majority of people -- even believers -- choose doctor first, rather than faith-healer first. Why?
The truth of the matter is, on most things -- at least things that we can understand -- we tend to go with the evidence. We tend not to accept that which is not evidenced. We do not believe we can fly unaided, because there's no evidence (and such evidence that there is tends toward rather unpleasant consequences for even making the attempt).
It seems, really, that God is just about the only thing that we humans tend to believe in total despite of the lack of evidence. And that would seem to suggest that the so-called "benefits" attached to belief are pretty likely to be false-hope scenarios -- that we are fooling ourselves, and doing it deliberately.
And that seems really peculiar to me.