I often hear a version of this quip from atheists: “If you accept the Bible’s miracles, why don’t you accept that Muhammad rode a flying horse?” The assumption lying behind the question is this: if you accept one miracle claim, why don’t you accept them all?
Sorry to burst your balloon, but that’s like asking “If you accept one person’s testimony, why don’t you accept every person’s testimony?” There are all sorts of reasons that a person may have for accepting one testimonial claim and not another. The mere fact that you are open to testimonial claims does not mean you must accept all of them!
By the same token, the mere fact that you are open to miracle claims does not mean that you must accept all of them. So believe it or not, it really is possible to believe Jesus rose from the dead while denying that Muhammad rode a flying horse.
Now I know what the atheist/skeptic will say next: “Okay smart guy, why do you accept the one claim and not the other?” I actually think the atheist/skeptic can go a significant ways toward answering their own question. Start by asking yourself “What sorts of reasons do I appeal to in order to select which testimonial claims I accept, which I consider seriously, and which I am inclined to dismiss out of hand?” And I suspect that after you draw up a comprehensive list, you’ll be well on your want to understanding the types of reasons to which a Christian would appeal for accepting one miracle claim and not another.