https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_supernatural_beings
Its kind of impossible to claim damages against a being which:
A) Cannot legally hold property.
B) Cannot be proven to have ever taken actions resulting in damages.
C) Cannot be served papers due to having no known address with which a living person can serve process papers.
Betty Penrose
In 1969, Arizonan lawyer Russel T. Tansie filed a suit against God on behalf of his secretary, Betty Penrose, seeking $100,000 in damages. Penrose blamed God for his "negligence" in allowing a lightning bolt to strike her house.[1] The lawsuit was filed in a Californian court under the argument that God owned property in Sonoma County, California, due to the Limeliters singer Lou Gottlieb transferring the deed of his Morning Star Ranch to God about a week before. The deed was ruled invalid, due to God not being able to take possession of the property, and hence Penrose's lawsuit was also ruled invalid.[2]
I am gravely disappointed that the rationale the court used wasn't that the lightning bolt was an act of God.
In legal usage in the English-speaking world, an act of God, act of nature, or damnum fatale ("loss arising from inevitable accident") is an event caused by no direct human action (e.g. severe or extreme weather and other natural disasters) for which individual persons are not responsible and cannot be held legally liable for loss of life, injury, or property damage.[2][3][4][5]
EDIT: I mean, they're probably legally-correct. I think that they are supposed to consider jurisdiction before anything else, and it died on a jurisdictional issue, but my way is funnier.
Doesnt omniscience otherwise satisfy that requirement or something
How?
A pope is some kind of supernatural entity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
... the name commonly given to the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, who had been dead for about nine months ... At the end of the trial, Formosus was pronounced guilty
Stephen had Formosus's corpse exhumed and brought to the papal court for judgment
No. I remember reading the public record of one person who tried, but the judge dismissed the case on the basis that god was not a resident within the court's jurisdiction.
Thats a cute dismissal, its enjoyable when judges have some fun with their dispositions
There is no such thing as a Stupid Question!
Don't be embarrassed of your curiosity; everyone has questions that they may feel uncomfortable asking certain people, so this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca still apply!
Thanks for reading all of this, even if you didn't read all of this, and your eye started somewhere else, have a watermelon slice ๐.