A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife


<< 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:-
Beischel, J., & Schwartz, G.E. (2007).
"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 two of the most decorated scientists in their time: 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 these last 15 years, no genius scientist has been able to show WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the afterlife evidence is not or cannot be valid. No genius materialist has been able to disprove the afterlife evidence. 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 any skills and ability to perceive the evidence with true scientific balance.

Statement made by a skeptic in one of our meetings: "I will not believe in the afterlife even if you can prove it to me Victor" - and that says it all!