My statement was not offered as evidence for God, I was just stating that I did not decide how many unusually Holy people there are, I determined it from what I believe is His communication to us and my experience.
pos: And yet you started your sentence by saying...
I didn't decide, God did...
When making such opening statements, you should first present proof of god.
I never claimed I could prove God, but I have presented multiple lines of evidence for His existence.
ed: Yes, but from the context and the specific mentioning of these particular believers being Holy and being resurrected, points to an unusual holiness beyond the ordinary believer.
pos: What is unusual holiness ?
It could be any number of things, such as martyrdom, great faith in a difficult situations, showing great courage in horrific situations, taking great moral actions while under great temptation not to do them, and etc.
ed: I didn't say it was hardly worth mentioning, I said it was probably mentioned so often in the oral stories especially to the jews (Matthew was writing primarily to jews which is one reason why these were specifically mentioned since these were Jewish holy people not Christian holy people) that the other writers decided not to mention these events. His mentioning of the temple curtain being split also was directed specifically to the jews. The writers of the other Gospels were not specifically targeting jewish believers, that may be also why it was not mentioned. There are many very important statements made by Jesus that were only written down by John and not the other gospel writers and probably for the same reasons but as John got older he felt it was important to write these statements down though probably early Christians were very familiar with these statements because of their uniqueness and John's long oral ministry.
pos; I would have thought that people being resurrected would be of utmost importance to Jew and non Jew alike given that the major attraction and selling point of the gospel is the resurrection and eternal life.
Actually the major point of the gospel is Christ's death as the atonement for our sins so that we can live forever with God in the next life, the physical resurrection is actually just a "side effect" of that great act.
ed: How does it not? You have not refuted a single one of my points.
pos:That's just the point, you are the one claiming a god (one of many such made up claims claims in the world), you have to prove necessity of a god when making a leap between the two. So far you haven't, i don't need to refute a lack of evidence, it speaks for itself.
But you at least need to demonstrate that there IS a lack of evidence, you have failed to do that so far also.
pos: And do you ever wonder why mainstream science does not agree with your 'only logical solution' answers ?
I know why, it is because of an a priori commitment to the philosophy of Naturalism.
ed: No, the evidence for Christianity in the areas of science, history, and philosophy is greater than all other religions and worldviews.
pos: Okay, the show me some credible evidence, that Christianity itself is responsible for the majority (or at least a greater share) of these things. In other words where the science is directly related to the uniqueness of the Christian faith.
I am not saying that Christianity is the originator of these areas of inquiry, I am saying that there is large amounts of evidence in these areas that demonstrate that biblical Christianity is most likely true.
pos: I can certainly show you examples of where the church has opposed scientific progress on issues of dogma and faith claims.
The church yes, the teachings of Biblical Christianity, no, unless the science jeopardizes human lives.
ed: We don't know for certain, but we can come to the most likely logical conclusion,
pos; Which is, we don't know
No, we can know, as I have demonstrated earlier.
ed: but of course most scientists are not going to admit this or acknowledge it because then they would be blacklisted as a crazy fundie.
pos: Well when people start claiming one of many gods. or gods at all did these things, all without any evidence whatsoever you can see their point I'm sure.
No, the problem is that there IS evidence for a specific God.
ed: See above why.
pos: And yet, mainstream science does not follow your reasoning.
See above why.
ed: I am a biologist. How are scientists supposed to speak?
pos: With knowledge.
You have yet to demonstrate that I have not spoken with knowledge.
