Proof that God does not exist.

If if if you intend to reboot
1/ Make a CLEAR statement of the charge ie (I am presuming god is the accused) so the charge would be like "god you are hereby charged as being non existent. How do you plead?.............. Let the record show in the absence of a plea being given a plea of Not Guilty is formally entered"

2/ is the prosecution ready to address the jury? (the posters)

etc etc

If you post put down your side at start of post ie PROSECUTION Me Lord "Blah blah blah"
DEFENCE Me Lord "Blah blah blah"
JUDGE Prosecution will call first witness
etc etc

Better you pick another judge (or allow it panel of Judges) - Jan is on my Iggy list :)


I think Jan would be an excellent choice for the judge as it will give him experience in the necessity of evidence in even trivial matters.
I think Jan would be an excellent choice for the judge as it will give him experience in the necessity of evidence in even trivial matters.
Oh dear god Noooooooo

Since Jan is on my Iggy list I'm out of the court room whenever he post

Don't expect unbiased rulings and expect judgments about admissible evidence to be lopsided

But your thread your rules

Go for it

To prove God is dead in court would be difficult, since you could just invoke Habeus Corpus.
Time to lobby the politicians to amend the law.
I actually nabbed a debtor once on a similar writ to Habeus Corpus was Habeus something...the guy was doing a runner and I had the sheriff officers drag him off the boat only an hour and a half before it was to leave...was he surprised...took him to his solicitors got a bank cheque and let him go back on the client was most impressed.
Last edited:
Not so

Habeus Corpus does NOT refer to a physical persons body

Habeus Corpus means "show me the body of EVIDENCE"


Maybe this will help

habeas corpus
ˌheɪbɪəs ˈkɔːpəs/
  1. a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.
    "his application for habeas corpus"
    • the legal right to apply for a habeas corpus writ.
      "Europe was first to introduce habeas corpus and the jury system.
From Wiki.

Good so there is no problem.

Why should they indeed one has to take me seriously however if they wish to that is up to them.

I am happy with everything I am sorry if that was not clear.

No problems irrespective of my demands having authority or not no evidence will be presented by theists but somehow I dont think it is my credibility that is at stake...can you guess whos credibility is at stake...

On the bright side you at least seem to recognise that they employ a tactic...shame as evidence would be so helpful.

Sadly, this topic seems to be nothing but trolling then. I had hoped for more.
The "tactic" seems to be wholly perceived and employed by you. I don't know any religious people that would be aware of it as such.
And I assume you won't have any examples to the contrary.

Certainly admissable if they agree with me.

Absolutely and they should be punished...was he a Frenchman?

Thanks for so quickly disabusing me of the notion of taking you seriously.
Just asking you to summarise your thinking , nothing more .

That wont be easy but for you river I will try.

I started the thread believing that as the law requires proof of specific types varying between criminal and civil matters that one could satisfy either of those standards of proof and in effect prove a negative.

However there was a point where I thought that theists must be happy to hold arguements about God as to do so would lend some credibility to their belief.

I felt the discussion moved too fast past a point at which we should take time to determine if there could be any God at all.

However as I retreated I have been called to back up my various claims which I really cant be bothered to do so and as a result risked the stigma to be branded as lacking credibility in any previous demand I may have made for evidence and more or less accepting that I will be regarded as no better than a theist who never backs up their claim with evidence.

And so we arrive at where we are somewhat wandering around with our hands in our pockets wondering what will happen next.

And I must say out of anyone you alone have at least tried to offer something in support of there being a God and although I dont absolutely agree with all you have put forward certainly respect the fact that you did at least try and compliment you for so doing.

Basically my position now becomes ...if a theist wants to discuss a God he must first present some reason why anyone should indulge his imaginings ... and if something even himts at there being anything at all to this invention we can loosly call God then and only then may the discussion proceed.

But for me I have resolved not to give credibility to any invented notion by discussing it before it becomes reasonably established.

Sadly, this topic seems to be nothing but trolling then.
Oh please dont be sad for your assumption that the thread was started as a trolling exercise is incorrect.

I think my premise can be understood ...which is using the standard of proof used in our courts it should be possible to prove there is no God....
If you wish step into my shoes and manage the case...if you feel uncomfortable making God the focus perhaps select Santa...Do you not believe you could argue along the lines I suggest?
The "tactic" seems to be wholly perceived and employed by you.
Are you moving the posts?
It was you who mentioned tactic...need I go on to point out you are going off the road here?
And tactic is not a dirty word you describes it describes ...well it describes a tactic.
And I assume you won't have any examples to t
I certainly believe that making assumptions is dangerous because they are after all assumptions.
However if you wish to employ assumption that is up to you.
Thanks for so quickly disabusing me of the notion of
No problems I had been hinting but felt maybe I needed to make it very obvious ...

If you think there is anything to be gained by going back to square one please say so.


god to me is being , not a god persay , but a being which is in every thing .

god though is otherwise a abrahamic symbol from the ancient times . Which is entirely different from my point of a god . god does exist in these texts because at the time , this being was a physical being .
Whether or not the intent was to troll, it's clear that's the result. Every attempt made to engage your premise was met with flippancy and no indication of intent to hold up your stated end.
Now it's just boring. Oh well.
Whether or not the intent was to troll, it's clear that's the result

And it was you who introduced the concept of mens rea convenient that the concept now seems forgotten.

Every attempt made to engage your premise was met with flippancy and no indication of intent to hold up your stated end.

Part of my tactic could be to wear out any opposition...had you considered that may be my plan?

Think about it this way.

I am now in the position where I know what you are thinking without engaging in haste and responding with what I hold back for perhaps a crushing ending and at the same time frustrating you such that you become less determined and also prone to make irrelevent accusations, such as, that I am trolling, such that my credibility is ruined..have you thought I may just consider we are only halfway through round one...

Read the openning post there is a clue therein...ok I will spell it you re read it.

In fact reread everything and consider your positition.

Now it's just boring.

Good you are now tiring and its still round one.

And I also think the thread could be really something because after all we all happily agree that one can not prove a negative and all are confident that position is correct.

I say it is not correct.
Even when you lose to me you will have enjoyed the experience.

So far river is the only person who has presented, with an honesty that I respect, something as to providing an insite that for him life is a indication that there is a God.

River suggests that life is evidence in itself that there is a God and although I ordinarily would say thats not evidence given that there is nothing else I dont feel rivers view should be casually dismissed.

It is honest and concise.

If only others could be as honest as river.

He is to be applauded for coming forward and honestly offering his view.

He stands alone and he is entitled to stand proud.

From you and others your attempt to progress matters past where river has taken the matter is unforgivable and then to somehow to claim in various ways I avoid some responsibilty to behave in a manner you choose does not impress me in the least.

So we reach this spot where I must prove a straw man does not exist for you offer me nothing to work with...If you want me to prove anything past that, which I now say that I will not be bothered to do, you had better present something with the same honesty that river employed in his effort to establish his belief that there is a God.

Really what have you got?

writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release


god is not under arrest

He is accused

unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.

The requirement is for the EVIDENCE to be produced to keep him under arrest


habeas corpus.

(Latin) You have the body; a writ that institutes a court proceeding to determine whether a criminal defendant has been lawfully imprisoned, or to test the constitutionality of a conviction; also used in cases of child custody and deportation

Legal dictionary

ie produce the evidence or set him / her free
a more common mistake / popular misconception "show me the dead body"

Last edited:
What would constitute evidence for God's existence?

First thing Jan sorry for the late reply...
I was in a rush got off a short reply and did not get back to your post.
I now do so although you seem to have me on toast.

I guess what I seek as evidence would be something that could show God made known something and that event is credible ...
I just cant see where the idea starts and if you look to where the idea starts you cant look to stuff that borders on witchcraft really.

Further something from modern times perhaps.

So stop bluffing.
I dont believe I am bluffing why would you think such a thing?

Theists do not need to discuss whether or not God exists.
They really should however.
I dont see why there is a percieved problem for them to question their beliefs unless their beliefs are so fragile no one is prepared to risk playing with the house of cards.

It just seems all blindly follow the party line and do not actually think if God could be different to what the party line dictates.
So it is the atheist, for whom there is no God, that has elevated it to a serious discussion.
Yes I can go with that.
Knock yourself out
Thats a funny thing to say .. why would I knock myself out????
You need to establish more than that.
Like what?
Why does the burden move to me?
Your God ... start talking I wont interrupt.
The fact that you don't know that, is for you, self-defeating.
Well help me out and explain why you can not simply provide just dont seem to be able to contribute.

Look at rivers contribution at least he makes an honest attempt to explain how he views things but you just muddy the water such that I really dont know what you are talking about or if you even know what you are talking about.
Obviously you jest.
No I am serious.
If you read the earlier links I think certainly you would have to agree the evil debate leaves theists badly beaten.
Nevertheless if you see it differently you may do so but the evil debate must make all theists uncomfortable and if not one must wonder if they bother to think at all.
If not, show where this beating has occurred.
Look at the links provided earlier and tell me honestly what you find.
There is no God, for the atheist, period.
The atheist only seeks to justify, and validate his current position, until he/she comes to their senses (from theistic pov

Hardley a reasonable responce to my post Jan.

I made the statement there is nothing such that we can get off the ground...your answer takes us no further.

Why do you avoid offerring something is it because you have nothing.
Oppression, and suppression.
The militant atheists answer to a successful society.
What does this have to do with my simple request for reasonable information?
Any theist found with his foot in the door, should have it chopped off immediately. ;)
At the head.
Do you see my point Jan all I suggest is one step at a time...step one is to provide something to discuss that is tangible not this wishy washy evasive chatter you like to employ.
Just talk straight that is all I ask which does not seem unreasonable.
If we are deluded, show it.

I do not need to show something that sticks out like ...well sticks out like it does.
We have yet to see proof that God does not exist
True Jan.
But hopefully you will.
Fortunately if we apply the standard of proof required at law the machinery is there to prove God does not exist even if he does.

So stick around and eventually when I have everthing set up I will roll out the steam roller.
I think you should cut the waffle, and begin your task.
Jan I have you to thank for my approach for from you I learnt to dtaw things out, also to frustrate others to the point they go bald at their own hands.
Further we have yet to define the concept of proof...what proof would you need for example.
IOW, you've bitten off more than you can chew.
You should learn how to operate in discussions, from your fellow atheist.
It's better than the nothing you currently offer.
Yes I do feel that I have bitten off more than I can chew so I ask can you help me out and give me something better to chew upon like some morsel that would indicate which windmill I should attack next...something like God was first recorded in whatever scripture..that sort of thing.
There will never, ever, be a situation where the atheist can comprehend God, as long as they are atheist.
For the atheist, there is no, and never can be, God.
Atheist = without God.
Seems like a closed club Jan.
I say that youust be able to offer something.
Look at river he stood up and honestly and sincerely tried to communicate his idea of God...and yet you present elitist, excuse the venacular, bulldust...why this pretence and this elitist nonsense.
Atheists (unbeknown to themselves) often invent God. A lot of them are pastors, rabbi's, imams, and Congregationalists in churches.
The problem is, they don't know they are atheist, they really believe they are theists. Then at some point they realise their real position and start banging on about how God is a made up concept.
They fail at theism, and atheism.
Very interesting and not surprising.
I guess it must be an embarrassment when you discover pretenders in the if there was ongoing discussion as to why members believed in God you could weed those folk out much earlier.
And I think I will really put anyone claiming to be an athiest to the test..they may only be agnostic.
The problem is, Alex. I think you subconsciously believe that God Is, meaning you are unaware of this.
Jan how many times now have I cautioned you not to think your thoughts become reality. I can not remember thats how many.
Take my words onboard else enlightenment escapes over the horizon.
This makes you desperate to draw a line under the concept of God does not exist, so as not to have to contemplate God, because the moment you do, you will surrender.
You know it, and I know it.
Yes indeed you know it and you know it, I guess I dont count.
You simply don't want God to exist, so you keep repeating it in the hope it will some how be true.
Jan honestly I would love it if God really did exist because we would not have the evil debate as a real God would fix all that...but I must learn to accept there is no God and that cruelty and suffering will continue with no hope a God created world will ever be real and that folk will lie to themselves to take their minds off their miserable existence with no purpose.

And I would love a soul which I interpret as immortality but sadly like Santa reality denies us from enjoying mere delusions.
ow many threads have been started by theists, inviting atheists to talk about God, or the existence of God?
Theists understand that there is no point trying to convince atheists of the position of theist,
So that why you dont even we know.

Nice try. You already rejected mens rea when you demanded civil law standards.
Just because I reject something does not take it out of existence and it is silly to think that I have such a power.
Mens Rea is still part of the law and when you accuse me of a crime it is you who openned the door and invited it back in...
If you think I was trolling go ahead and offer proof and I will hear you out.