Would this be evidence for God?

[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."