A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife


Return to
A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife



<< Return to Articles


I have to concede that these days the objections I receive from skeptics to the evidence for the afterlife are very few. In fact I estimate that I only hear from one skeptic in some 10,000 responses- that's .01% But because I try to answer all emails, I find that uninformed skeptics waste my precious time raising invalid objections. So, if you are a skeptic, before you email me to argue about the afterlife evidence, please show you know what you are talking about and that have gone through these:

1. Actually read the evidence as set out in my book A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife and my multimedia section The Evidence for the Afterlife. It is very common for people to make objections without first reading the evidence.

2. Consult your lawyer asking him to explain to you what
technically consititutes admissible evidence. I can't deal with amateurs trying to debate law with me. Scientists are experts in science, lawyers are experts in the admissibility of evidence. In any inconsistence between law and science, as to the admissibility of evidence, law prevails and will always prevail over science.

3 . Ask your lawyer to explain in clear terms the meaning of 'hearsay' evidence. Over the years I found skeptical dummies unable to understand what how 'hearsay' evidence differes from 'direct evidence'.

4 .
Ask your lawyer about who is a credibile authority on the performance of psychics in helping police solve crimes. He/she will tell you that when senior police officers around the United States confirm that mediums and psychics are real they do have credibility. Otherwise the skeptic has to show these senior police officers do not have credibility.

5 . Find out the true meaning of 'anecdotal' evidence.

6 . Find out the difference between objective and subjective evidence,
7 . Go to a scientist to explain what is Scientific Method. There are those skeptics whose minds will know allow them to accept that certain evidence for the afterlife has been produced using Scientific Method.

8 . Go to a psychologist and ask him or her to explain the meaning of 'rationalization through cognitive dissonance' - a most common problem with skeptics who keep on stubbornly rationalizing their irrational skeptical beliefs notwithstanding repeatable and objective afterlife evidence.

9 . Go and see an expert in Neurolinguistic Programming to explain the defence of 'deletion' when without you knowing it you mind deletes evidence which shows that the afterlife is valid.

10 . Go to a statistician to explain mathematical probabilities - that when the odds against chance of certain afterlife evidence is a million to one or even great that cannot be chance - it means that the event really happened.

Otherwise please do not waste my time complaining and raising objections about things you show you do not understand.

Any queries: