And the only proof of any "miracle" in the bible is - guess what? - cited using the bible. That's what circular reasoning is.

Actually, no. It's not. If I was saying "This miracle happened which is why the Bible is true, the proof it happened is because the Bible says so and it did because it's true" then yes, that would be circular reasoning.

To develop this further because I enjoy infodumping on my special interests, you can divide the Bible into two natures: theological and historical. You start with the historical It is worth mentioning that the Bible is a collection of human writings, which we have divided into 66. (Some were written as the same work but were divided up, like Luke and Acts or the Penteuch, but that's another topic)

So, my thought process is simple. I believe that parts of the New Testament was written first-hand by people who knew Jesus of Nazareth. The pattern of the writings show whoever wrote it was historically familiar with their surroundings. It was generally undisputed who wrote these at the time. They line up enough to be giving a consistent narrative, but not enough to be copying each other in the case of John vs the Synoptics (The synoptics did borrow from each other quite a bit). This is the crux of the matter- Is the New Testament reliable? If you put it under scrutiny and come to the conclusion simply that it is written by people who knew Jesus of Nazareth and that they genuinely believed in what they were saying (considering they got absolutely destroyed by the romans for this belief and didn't stand to benefit as well), then what follows is that Jesus literally rose from the dead, must have really been God and whatever He and the Holy Spirit taught is true. Then, what follows is that whatever Jesus taught is in fact true, so eg, we should love our neighbours. Then since He quoted the Old Testament and also appointed disciples and spoke of the Holy Spirit, it's worth concluding that these writings are also true.

So if the Historical nature of the Bible is true, then Jesus' divinity is true. If Jesus' divinity is true, then the theological nature is true. But the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible. When I was younger, my skeptical mind was disappointed by a tract proposing the question "Is the Bible True" ans concluding 'yes' because a bible verse says it is. Sure, St Paul who was witnessed receiving a vision of Jesus and being blinded can attest that He is writing with the Holy Spirit as He has the credentials, and Jesus can attest the Holy Spirit was in the Old Testament because He is God and thus has the credentials, but it cannot be used to ascertain whether or not the Bible is historically true.

If you make a claim with no objective, testable, flasifiable proof, all you have is a claim. And until you provide robust proof, I will dismiss your claim

With this standard, good luck trying to prove that most of history happened.

Another issue with this standard- Miracles are miraculous because they aren't really testable - if holding a flame up to a stick of dry wood causes it to catch fire, that's not a miracle, that's just considered science. Your standard is deliberately designed in such a way so that you'd never believe a miracle.