Articles
<<
Return to Articles
AFTERLIFE OBJECTIONS
OVERRULED   Victor
Zammit lawyer shows why objections of afterlife evidence
are not valid objections.
Below are some of the most common objections raised over
the last twenty years by the skeptics about the evidence
for the afterlife.
 1st
Objection. “The
evidence for the afterlife cannot be valid because there
is no afterlife.”
Victor: That is an inadmissible
objection because the objector is making an assumption there
is no afterlife without producing any objective evidence
that there is no afterlife. No one on earth has ever produced
evidence to show that there is no afterlife, therefore the
objection cannot be accepted and technically the objection
is inadmissible especially where there is universally, a
huge amount of expressly stated evidence - much of it objective
and repeatable - for the existence of the afterlife. For
example, I presented some twenty two areas of afterlife
evidence which have not been rebutted by the materialist
experts or by anyone in the last eight years. Other scientists
have produced brilliant evidence for the afterlife - see
chapter 3 and chapter 25 (Quantum Physics and the Afterlife)
of my book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE.
2nd Objection:
"Death is a part of life and pretending that
the dead are gathering in a television studio in New York
to talk twaddle with a former ballroom dance instructor
is an insult to the intelligence and humanity of the living."
Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine and executive
director of the Skeptics Society trying to denigrate gifted
medium John Edward.
Victor: This objection is immediately overruled
because the statement:
- is an expression
of a personal subjective belief,
- has no objective empirical substance,
- is highly prejudicial and 'self
serving,'
- has no probative value,
- is highly speculative without evidence,
- fundamentally lacks legitimate 'authority,'
- is a 'denial' - instead of an analytical
rebuttal of the afterlife evidence,
- is not specifically scientifically
based and
- is an attempt to use ridicule from
a position of extreme ignorance about afterlife evidence
the skeptic shows he has not studied.
A judge would have no problems at all over-ruling this objection.
Notice carefully, this M. Shermer totally ignores the vast
amount of empirically based afterlife evidence for mediumship
(outlined in my
book with 23 areas of afterlife hard core evidence)
and the results of extensive university controlled tests
that brilliant medium John Edward was subjected to - see:-
"Anomalous information reception by research mediums
demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol."
EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing, 3 (1), 23-27
]
As above stated consistent with Neurolinguistic Programming
(NLP), M Shermer's mind automatically deletes the evidence.
His mind makes Michael pretend - and makes him delude himself
the afterlife does not exist - because the evidence for
the afterlife is inconsistent with the skeptic's cherished
beliefs. He rationalizes his negative beliefs to avoid anxiety
and the pain.
So, it is M. Shermer who is "talking
twaddle" ignoring the substantive empirical evidence
for the afterlife which more that sixty five per cent of
the world accepts. It shows he is unable or incompetent
or unwilling to properly and empirically rebut this afterlife
evidence - to show where, when, how and why the expressly
stated evidence for the afterlife cannot be relied upon.
His omission to do so is an insult to all those intelligent
people who want to know if the afterlife evidence can ever
be discounted- since the empirically elicited afterlife
evidence has never been rebutted.
3. “Belief in the afterlife
is just ridiculous." The
most popular objection by the lower-end of the skeptics
these last twenty years.
Victor: That
kind of objection is in itself invalid and is automatically
overruled because it is a subjective statement unsupported
by evidence. “Belief in the afterlife …”
I never asked anyone to ‘believe’ in
anything. The skeptics illegitimately keep on making the
same fundamental error by talking about ‘belief’
in the afterlife. I have no luxury for ‘beliefs.’
I ACCEPT the empirically produced EVIDENCE for the afterlife
– something which is totally different to personal
religious beliefs or blind faith or subjectivity. Empirically
produced evidence for the afterlife is about an objective
formula which repeated over time and space keeping variables
constant yields the same results. In fact the skeptic is
being ridiculous by not having the capacity, the skills
and the competence to perceive the paranormal with true
empirical equanimity.
4. “No one can prove the
afterlife because no one can prove the negative.”
Stated by a closed-minded flamboyant skeptic
from Florida - and a representation of the skeptics' belief..
Victor: In professional
debate, the asserter has to prove – or in the legal
context the lawyer for the plaintiff has to prove his case
by presenting his/her evidence. So, the asserter - the lawyer
- to prove his case presents his evidence. Of course, they
also bring their expert witnesses to support their evidence.
Accordingly, the plaintiff lawyer's motion is ‘that
there is an afterlife’. As the plaintiff lawyer,
I presented some twenty-two areas of evidence for the afterlife
from the Electronic Voice Phenomena, Instrumental Trans-communication,
Laboratory experiments, Near Death and Out of Body Experiences
to Xenoglossy and Quantum Physics. Now, the procedure in
professional debate is for those opposing the expressly
stated evidence to cross-examine the witnesses to show WHERE,
WHEN, HOW and WHY this expressly stated evidence ought not
to be accepted on EACH definitive area of afterlife evidence
presented. It is absolutely meaningless and inadmissible
for the skeptic to say, “no one can prove the negative”
simply because the evidence has been positively expressly
stated. In nine years that I had this afterlife evidence
on the internet, no one – no skeptic or materialist
or reductionist scientist, no senior litigation lawyer,
no magician or anybody else has been able to rebut the afterlife
evidence. That uninformed closed minded skeptic from Florida
who has influenced a lot of his followers and who swallowed
this objection keeps on repeating the same fallacious objection
that ‘you can’t prove the negative’ which
shows he does not know, does not understand and is not familiar
with the rules of professional debate. Most interesting,
the more informed intellectual skeptics do not raise this
objection because they know they’d make fools of themselves
if they do. Only the lower, uninformed skeptics do.
No.5.“Materializations
cannot be for real. There were too many frauds in the past
and many of these were exposed to be frauds.” This
is also a most common objection by the skeptics about materializations
of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Victor: This is another
inadmissible objection: the objector is citing self-serving
prejudicial information to support his own negative prejudice
without citing objective authority. Whilst it is admitted
there were cheats and charlatans in the past who were not
mediums, (as there are have been cheats and charlatans claiming
to be doctors and in all professions), there were also genuine
materializations that were empirically tested and where
no one was able to prove fraud. From the earliest materializations
experienced by Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge
– two brilliant scientists who used their scientific
skills to investigate the afterlife to the most recent empirical
investigations into materializations of David Thompson and
one or two others in England. Legally, the objection is
also ‘hearsay’ – repeating without proof
what somebody else said. For fifteen months on a weekly
basis, as an investigating empiricist I -and other empiricists
qualified in scientific method -systematically investigated
the materializations of medium David Thompson and we guarantee
there were positive results where no fraud took place–
contact was made on a weekly basis with afterlife intelligences.
6. “There
is no evidence for the afterlife.” Popular
with reductionist sciensts.
Victor: As above stated,
no genius scientist has been able to show WHERE, WHEN, HOW
and WHY the afterlife evidence is not or cannot be valid.
One of the biggest problems I have found for over twenty
years is that the closed minded skeptic has a real problem
about the evidence for the afterlife. The skeptic's deeply
entrenched closed mindedness deletes the evidence - see
the next item below:
7. "I will not believe in the afterlife even
if you can prove it to me Victor" - quote from a skeptic
in one of Victor's lectures.
VictorL WHY CLOSED MINDED SKEPTICS REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE
PARANORMAL AND THE AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE?
1. Psychology defence: a) 'rationalization
through cognitive dissonance': a defence the skeptical mind
puts to information which is fundamentally inconsistent
with cherished conditioned beliefs. The skeptical mind rationalizes
that the inconsistent information cannot be right because,
if allowed to get through, the information will cause a
'dissonance' - conflict - and anxiety to the skeptic’s
‘comfort-zone’. This means the heart will beat
faster, the blood pressure will increase, he will start
to sweat a little. So the skeptical mind says NO - and goes
into complete DENIAL- says the information cannot be right
- and rejects the information even if the inconsistent afterlife
evidence is scientifically proven to be correct.
2. Cathexis: this refers to the
skeptic's mind being irrationally and powerfully bonded
like super-glue with 'closed minded' skepticism which forms
a core part of his identity. Of course, cathexis also refers
to other people being irrationally and psychologically bonded
to other things or other ideas.
3. Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP)
talks about 'deletions'- when information fundamentally
inconsistent with the skeptic's world view is automatically
deleted without examination. According to NLP the skeptic's
mind will 'delete' that information to keep the mind and
body of the skeptic in the 'homeostatis' (peaceful) condition
- calm, tranquil, undisturbed in its comfort zone.
4. Beliefs determined by environment:
if the closed minded skeptic was born to a devout Hindu
family in India, the skeptic is guaranteed to have a belief
in the Hindu religion. If born in Iraq or Iran or in any
Islamic country, this skeptic will have Islamic beliefs.
If born in Israel to an orthodox Jewish family, the skeptic
would have Jewish beliefs etc...
So the challenge for the skeptic
is to rise above his early conditioning, remove the mental
blocks and learn how to perceive all information in a scientifically
balanced way
| 