Christianity in Africa stats: <10 MN in 1900, 700 MN today.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hume, haha. Pls see this: "Today we want to look at David Hume’s “in principle” argument against miracles. Despite its influence, Hume’s argument is generally recognized by philosophers today, in the words of the philosopher of science John Earman, as an “abject failure.”[1] Earman is a Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh and not a Christian (not even a theist), and yet he recognizes that Hume’s argument against miracles is, as he puts it, an abject failure. What Earman means by that is that it's not just a minor mistake – this argument is demonstrably, irremediably a failure." From: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts...on-part-17

Yes, agreed, though, Brian, that numbers by themselves don't establish Truth. What would establish Truth is if it can be shown that there were Divine Miracles as the most likely explanation driving that growth. That is, that the effect of observed growth came from a Divine, not Naturalistic, Cause.

IIRC, Brian, you are a former Catholic, correct me if I am mistaken; well, the Catholic Church teaches that Prophecies and Miracles are the most fitting demonstrations of the Omnipotence and Omniscience of God, and this is logical and intuitive: by prophecies, God reveals foreknowledge. By miracles, He reveals Great Power. Thus, if there were well documented cases of either, that would then be solid evidence for a non-deistic God. And if they are associated with Christianity, and accompany the Gospel, e.g. at Crusades were Millions believe they experience Miracles and thus give their lives to Jesus Christ, that suggests that Jesus Christ did not stay dead but truly Rose from the dead.

Here is Vatican I on Faith and Reason. From: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library...uncil-1505

---

4. Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.
5. Hence Moses and the prophets, and especially Christ our Lord Himself, worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies; while of the apostles we read: And they went forth and preached every, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it [18]. Again it is written: We have the prophetic word made more sure; you will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place [19].

---

Earman’s critique of Hume has been pretty well hammered by other people. I don’t know where Craig gets the view that Hume’s On Miracles is ‘generally regarded’ as a failure. Any self-respecting philosopher worth her salt would accept that in evaluating a purported miracle would agree with Hume that evidence and experience must outweigh wishful thinking (I exclude those philosophers with a vested interest in miracles being true).

If you’ve got actual evidence that the Church achieved its current state via miracles (as opposed to belief in miracles and hucksterism), trot it out and I’ll be happy to consider it.

I was raised in a Catholic household, was baptized and confirmed, went to Mass, took Communion, confessed, did penance, and attended Sunday school and catechism classes. But I was NEVER a Catholic. In light of this, you’ll understand that I don’t care a fig for what the Church has to say about anything, and the opinions of Charlemagne’s pet pontiff hold no weight with me.

Boru