Would this be evidence for God?

[bunny]

If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Like...? But I am thinking no. You could say... all religions used a base ten number system. Since number systems could be any number of digits, this is obviously proof of divine inspiration. Of course, our number of fingers doesn't have anything to do with it...

[bunny]

I was thinking something uncontroversial but not yet verified. Like "When the sun is eclipsed for four days straight, God will appear on Earth" or something like that. If every religion, in all cultures that had arisen in varying times all contained something like that (and it could be verified that they had arisen independently) would it be evidence that there was something to it? Even before it had occurred?

Edit: I guess uncontroversial was a poor choice of word. I meant uncontroversially a fact, not uncontroversially true.

[Andrew Karpinski]

(and it could be verified that they had arisen independently)


good luck on this one

[ChrisV]

A lot of things I don't think would qualify as evidence of anything other than the commonality of human nature. For instance, virtually all religions posit some kind of life after death. I don't think this is evidence of anything except wishful thinking.

[bunny]

I'm certainly not claiming there is anything like this - I'm just curious whether atheists would see it as evidence or not if something like this was present.

[bunny]

I agree that this is explainable in several ways. Less so with the eclipse example I gave above though. Would you count this as evidence (before it had occurred)?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is that it depends.

If the common belief is held in place by a connection with the truth of the belief then it would be impressive. If its held in place by coercion or indoctrination then it would be meaningless.

Its unlikely precisley because religous beliefs are held independently of the truth of the belief so there's nothing to stop the beliefs being high, wide and fancy free.

chez

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that this is explainable in several ways. Less so with the eclipse example I gave above though. Would you count this as evidence (before it had occurred)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on the way in which such a belief might come about. Connection of eclipse with divine events is natural because of the inexplicability and rareness of the events, so it would need to be something very specific, like two eclipses one day apart, or some such.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is that it depends.

If the common belief is held in place by a connection with the truth of the belief then it would be impressive. If its held in place by coercion or indoctrination then it would be meaningless.

Its unlikely precisley because religous beliefs are held independently of the truth of the belief so there's nothing to stop the beliefs being high, wide and fancy free.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about some universal prophesy for which the truth was not (yet) testable. (See my eclipse example above). Would it's mere presence in all religions be any evidence to you as a non-believer?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is that it depends.

If the common belief is held in place by a connection with the truth of the belief then it would be impressive. If its held in place by coercion or indoctrination then it would be meaningless.

Its unlikely precisley because religous beliefs are held independently of the truth of the belief so there's nothing to stop the beliefs being high, wide and fancy free.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about some universal prophesy for which the truth was not (yet) testable. (See my eclipse example above). Would it's mere presence in all religions be any evidence to you as a non-believer?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the prophecies were specific as to the event and the time, so that the future event couldnt be retrofitted into some vague prediction (National ID cards? gimme a break), and the prophecies arose independently it would give me reason to examine the evidence. The independence requirement would be quite difficult to satisfy though. At least one of the major religions making the prediction would have to have been totally isolated from the rest of the world at the time of the prophecy, and I dont know if thats ever been the case since language was developed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is that it depends.

If the common belief is held in place by a connection with the truth of the belief then it would be impressive. If its held in place by coercion or indoctrination then it would be meaningless.

Its unlikely precisley because religous beliefs are held independently of the truth of the belief so there's nothing to stop the beliefs being high, wide and fancy free.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about some universal prophesy for which the truth was not (yet) testable. (See my eclipse example above). Would it's mere presence in all religions be any evidence to you as a non-believer?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be very strong evidence of something/someone who knows more than we do, bit like if Halley had predicted the comet to some primative tribe or Tintin predicting an eclipse to the followers of the sun.

Can't see why it would be any reason to believe in a god.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is that it depends.

If the common belief is held in place by a connection with the truth of the belief then it would be impressive. If its held in place by coercion or indoctrination then it would be meaningless.

Its unlikely precisley because religous beliefs are held independently of the truth of the belief so there's nothing to stop the beliefs being high, wide and fancy free.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about some universal prophesy for which the truth was not (yet) testable. (See my eclipse example above). Would it's mere presence in all religions be any evidence to you as a non-believer?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be very strong evidence of something/someone who knows more than we do, bit like if Halley had predicted the comet to some primative tribe or Tintin predicting an eclipse to the followers of the sun.

Can't see why it would be any reason to believe in a god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Because if all religions were to independently provide identical statements in some areas it would imply they were getting their info from something genuine? That "something" is therefore a credible source of information and is also telling them there is a god. (I'm obviously not leading anywhere with this - pretty much none of my antecedent is true /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, I'm just curious if evidence of this kind would count for anything).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is that it depends.

If the common belief is held in place by a connection with the truth of the belief then it would be impressive. If its held in place by coercion or indoctrination then it would be meaningless.

Its unlikely precisley because religous beliefs are held independently of the truth of the belief so there's nothing to stop the beliefs being high, wide and fancy free.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about some universal prophesy for which the truth was not (yet) testable. (See my eclipse example above). Would it's mere presence in all religions be any evidence to you as a non-believer?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be very strong evidence of something/someone who knows more than we do, bit like if Halley had predicted the comet to some primative tribe or Tintin predicting an eclipse to the followers of the sun.

Can't see why it would be any reason to believe in a god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Because if all religions were to independently provide identical statements in some areas it would imply they were getting their info from something genuine? That "something" is therefore a credible source of information and is also telling them there is a god. (I'm obviously not leading anywhere with this - pretty much none of my antecedent is true /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, I'm just curious if evidence of this kind would count for anything).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it counts as evidence of a credible source. No reason to believe they speak the truth about being god.

If Halley had wanted dominion over the the primative tribe he predicts the comet and claims to be god. Then he demands worship, tributes etc

chez

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that this is explainable in several ways. Less so with the eclipse example I gave above though. Would you count this as evidence (before it had occurred)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Religious people keep assigning any unexplainable events to God, or advertising them as proof of it's existence. This is clearly a logical fallacy.

[bunny]

Clearly. That wasnt what I was asking.

[MrMon]

Some people clearly need to read "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" where it is clearly shown why proof of the existence of God is proof of God's non-existence.

[MKR]

[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

You answer your question in your second paragraph. If some phenomenon were explainable by an appeal to human nature surely that explanation should be preferred to one that requires the existence of a new sort of entity.

MKR

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?

Obviously it wouldnt be proof as it could have arisen through some fundamental human trait, just evidence of some sort. Also, I mean clearly recognisable facts, not poetically worded extracts which can be interpreted as similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

You answer your question in your second paragraph. If some phenomenon were explainable by an appeal to human nature surely that explanation should be preferred to one that requires the existence of a new sort of entity.

MKR

[/ QUOTE ]
It wouldnt be an appeal to a known aspect of human nature though. The materialistic explanation would be no less of a mystery than the "God told me" explanation. Again, I'm talking about some concrete fact common to all religions independently.

It's a common objection to the theistic position that the difference amongst religions is evidence against any of them being the real thing. This made me think about it from the other direction (as a purely hypothetical possibility).

[MidGe]

Hiya bunny,

Interesting question, but would it not more sensible for god to mahifest openly, clearly and unambiguously, or seed the knowledge of him into beings. Then it would make sense to accept or reject his dictates. By him not doing so, one must question whether or not our choice of religion may not be, indeed, a seduction and deceit by satan himself. Which it would be more likely to be, from appearances, if I accepted the god/satan possibility.

[Michaelson]

Interesting question. Just at the outset, I'm an atheist.

Presumably not all religions would have the four day eclipse prophecy, because even if there was a true spiritual realm that some religions had tapped into, there'd be other 'scam' religions still.

With that said, if I presume:

1) Several major religions, geographically diverse, all shared the same belief about the four day eclipse signalling god's arrival on earth.

and

2) The prophets who passed on the eclipse story all showed up in different parts of the world at around about the same time. For the sake of argument, we'll say 2,000 years ago: Global networks did not exist for a scam to have been orchestrated {there was no collusion). At the same time, though, evidence about the prophets--where they lived, that they didn't know of one another, that they lived at the same time etc--would be verifiable.

Well if these things were true you'd have to wonder how to explain the four day eclipse story. I'm not sure I can think of an explanation better than the prophets being genuine. It might be in human nature for us to yearn for a spiritual realm, life after death, an all-knowing god etc... but there's no reason you could posit for a story so specific to be independently common to all religions.

It certainly wouldn't be proof positive, but I think it would be something where any explanation posed would likely be at least as specious as the "prophets were the real deal" explanation. Furthermore the more elaborate the myth, the more compelling the evidence. If all religions shared (subject to the same restrictions listed above) a relatively detailed account of how the world began, and how the world would end, then it would be even more difficult to refute their legitimacy.

edited to remove a stupid sentence.

[atrifix]

I think chez got this one right. It's evidence that they have some authority or source of information, but not necessarily that their other beliefs are true. They could be malicious/deceived/incompetent/etc.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
If there was some fact that was found common in all world religions would this be evidence for God?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Or rather there are so many other much more likly reasons for similarities that this point can safely be ignored.

[pilliwinks]

Surely if you found a fact common even to several religions, you would have no evidence for the existence of any particular God on the basis that they do not agree on who he is.

Or are you assuming that most of the time Allah was having a joke with Mohammed about his nature, and only told the truth when it came to stories about eclipses?

I'd love for there to be congruence between world religions, but in my limited experience, there simply isn't, neither in their description of worldly facts nor the nature of the divinity.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely if you found a fact common even to several religions, you would have no evidence for the existence of any particular God on the basis that they do not agree on who he is.

Or are you assuming that most of the time Allah was having a joke with Mohammed about his nature, and only told the truth when it came to stories about eclipses?

I'd love for there to be congruence between world religions, but in my limited experience, there simply isn't, neither in their description of worldly facts nor the nature of the divinity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree there isnt much agreement. In thinking about the "If theists are right then how come religions are so different?" question I just wondered, hypothetically, what atheists would make of any agreement were it to exist.

Idle musing really and clearly I didnt explain what I meant particularly well.

[hmkpoker]

Not when you define "religion" to specifically mean belief systems that specifically include eschatological nonsense. There are many belief systems that don't discuss crap like that; we just don't label them as "religions."