A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

Articles << Return to Articles



by Attorney Victor Zammit

Just because a skeptic may be a scientist, does not mean he is correct in his argument. Don’t let a skeptical scientist or a skeptical magician or an academic or a professor use baloney to fool you that just because they are ‘professionals’ they cannot be wrong. Those who are uninformed or uncritical often fall victims for these skeptics’ traps. How can you detect these skeptics’ baloney?”

See below the false reasoning of these skeptics – and learn how to detect their invalid reasoning. (The skeptics I refer to in this article are the ‘closed-minded skeptics’. There are other highly intelligent afterlife researchers who are ‘open-minded skeptics’. As I stated elsewhere, as an afterlife investigator using Scientific Method, I am an open-minded skeptic): (Week Sept.20-13)


1. 'PROFESSIONAL STATUS' as authority in science to mislead and persuade you there is no afterlife (e.g. when medical doctors in the fifties and sixties were paid to go on television and their statement published in glossy magazines stating that smoking is not bad for your health): For example skeptical Professor Stephen Hawking used this kind of baloney to fool the uninformed: “anyone who believes in the afterlife is afraid of the dark.” An attorney in a courtroom situation will tear this Professor’s statement to shreds and would make him look silly and ridiculous. Why?

These professors use their status as university professors – as 'authority' – that what they say is true and cannot be challenged. Yet, when I sent them the substantive areas of evidence for the afterlife they could not show the evidence was not right. Naturally, the closed minded skeptics, without evidence, without thinking, just blindly supported these professors who violated the sacred rules of professional debate - something no one gets away with in the highest level of professional debate - in the Supreme Court.

Continues from editorial: (Week Sept.27-13) Second fallacy:

2. 'Conclusions before investigating' fallacy: Flamboyant and other skeptics come to conclusions before they investigate. This is very common with these said closed-skeptics: they come to conclusions BEFORE they investigate. These scientists may be professionals in their own narrow field of physical science, but when it comes to professional debate, that is the exclusive area of attorneys. Under close scrutiny, the record shows that these closed skeptics do not understand the rules of professional debate. Any conclusion shown to be made before is itself invalid ab initio (from the beginning).


<< Return to Articles

Copyright © 2001 Victor Zammit.  All rights reserved.  
Web site b