• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Victor Zammit Challenge: $1,000,000 To DISPROVE Afterlife Evidence

Either way, on a side note I showed it to a friend of mine who has suffered a morbid fear of death for years. He's convinced and his fear has left him. In fact, I think he's quite looking forward to it
Click to expand...

:)

I guess this is what Zammit is driving towards - an opening of the debate to folk who otherwise have been left in the dark.

Survival ought to be a big issue, but it isn't; few know of the work that has been done to test the notion, and I imagine most cave in to the pressure to dismiss the matter prima facie.

The main skeptical organisaions have been informed of Zammit's challenge, but I understand none of them have ventured to accept it. I do, sincerely, wonder why. Given their promotion of critical reasoning and supposed mastery of the art, it ought to be easy as taking a slash... ;)
 
don't sweat the survivalist/non-survivalist stuff.

Alexius said:
Survival ought to be a big issue, but it isn't; few know of the work that has been done to test the notion, and I imagine most cave in to the pressure to dismiss the matter prima facie.

The main skeptical organisaions have been informed of Zammit's challenge, but I understand none of them have ventured to accept it. I do, sincerely, wonder why. Given their promotion of critical reasoning and supposed mastery of the art, it ought to be easy as taking a slash... ;)
Click to expand...


For those of us who "know" that there is more out there than just the physical, we don't sweat the issue that some don't believe it. (Except for the fundamentalist types.) If skeptical organization members don't believe, then hey, they'll find out one day.
If they want to press me for proof, well, it's not up to me to prove it. I've experienced too much to think that the physical/material is all there is. (and I have a degree in Physics, so I know all about the physical!)

For those expending time and effort for the "Opposition" to win $1 million that's "unwinnable", well, let them. I know that the universe is odder than we all know, and we *just* might figure out some of it someday. Until then, enjoy life! It's why we're here! Well, it's why *I* am here. . . not sure about anyone else. . .
8)
 
Spiritualism is a universal ideal regardless of race, colour or creed. As humans, still relatively new in our development it's absurd that we would know everything, or presume to know everything. Religion and politics, both man-made, have been used as a way to control the masses by the few for centuries.
Life's about individualism and living your own moral code. But life's also about happiness and how many of us can say we've acheived real happiness? I can, and I can say that that's been acheived by keeping an open mind. Zammit has helped in that respect and if he is a charlatan ~ shame on him. How dare he help make me a much more centred person ( ...and no alms or taxes to bear).
If Victor Zammit is wrong I don't want to be right !!! :oops: :oops:
 
Spillage and Gadaffi, here is your chance to make a cool million bucks.
 
captainbirdspie said:
Spiritualism is a universal ideal regardless of race, colour or creed. As humans, still relatively new in our development it's absurd that we would know everything, or presume to know everything. Religion and politics, both man-made, have been used as a way to control the masses by the few for centuries.
Click to expand...

Spiritualism is a religion that developed around 150 years ago and therefore by your definition man-made. It's not a universal ideal.

Zammit's challenge is impossible, since you can't prove a negative and most of the evidence either way is hearsay. A lot of the protagonists are dead.

More tangible stuff like poltergeists, EVP, and channeling could have one of numerous explanations they don't prove the existence of the afterlife, they could - it we assume they're genuine, be evidence of telepathy or other psi-phenomena.

There's not way you can beat Zammit at this game, it's got loads of wiggle room and in the end all his committee has got to say is "we don't believe you."

2. The offeror and the applicant will agree that the applicant has demonstrated the technical skills to rebut the evidence. This is a fundamental and most important condition.
Click to expand...

i.e. We can reject you without even having to listen to your eveidence.

'The Committee' refers to a group of people expert in afterlife evidence. The 'afterlife evidence' refers to the evidence mentioned above in the Preface. 'Applicant' refers to a person applying to meet 'the challenge.'
Click to expand...

7. The applicant agrees that the level of proof required to rebut the evidence will be the Cartesian test, "beyond any doubt". This means that there has to be absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of the Committee that the 'evidence' has been rebutted.
Click to expand...

With the likely makeup of the committee, I can't see anyway you could do this.
 
There's not way you can beat Zammit at this game, it's got loads of wiggle room and in the end all his committee has got to say is "we don't believe you."
Click to expand...

Which would, ironically, be rather like another million-squillion dollar bet... ;)

Maybe so, in which case they are no better than the thing they have set out to bludgeon.

Zammit's challenge is impossible, since you can't prove a negative and most of the evidence either way is hearsay. A lot of the protagonists are dead.
Click to expand...

It is not calling for the 'proof of a negative' - rather, the refutation of an argument (or set of arguments), which is perfectly within the bounds of possibility.

The fact protagonists are dead has no bearing whatsoever. If it did, history as a discipline would be...erm...history...

Hearsay is uncorroborated. A lot of the material presented has been corroborated by other testimony or experimentation. The hinge seems to be the rejection of testimony as evidence, which strikes me as a goal-post-moving gesture by those who wish to evade the debate (not suggesting you are such, Timble).

In fact, corroborated testimony is the basis of so much we accept without having experienced ourselves. When it is claimed an eclipse experiment corroborated Einstein on the curvature of space, I have to take the experimenters at their word; when it is repeated, I have to take the experimenters at their word....and so on...a point comes when I make a commitment and come off the fence because I see no reason to doubt their veracity, and what is being presented strikes me as worth taking on board, or is difficult not to take on board without entailing a chain of contradictions.

Zammit has his agenda, but he is serving to show how this topic has been dismissed prima facie, without due examination. Given the philosophical importance of the topic, this is remarkable.
 
The whole problem with the evidence is that the historical evidence and testimonies, could point to genuine psychic events or to a very clever conjurer. Since no-ones around to cross-examine it comes down to opinion.

The physical evidence is evidence of something, but whether it's survival, super-psi, or some as yet unrecognised aspect of neurology for example is again interpretation.

Proving the case one way or the other on the evidence to the satisfaction of true believers of either colour, is IMO approaching impossible.

The problem is not so much refuting the evidence, it's agreeing wotinhell it's evidence of.
 
The problem is not so much refuting the evidence, it's agreeing wotinhell it's evidence of.
Click to expand...

I believe that is pretty much where the position stands at the quality end of the spectrum; Stephen Braude, for example, argues for there being a marginal edge to the survival hypothesis over super-psi, but that it is by no means clear cut.

As it stands now, a number of conclusions can be derived, and all have their advocates. All provide rational grounds for their respective stances. All deserve respect.

For my money, the Cross Correspondences provide the best evidence of survival - super psi has been invoked over the case, but looks a bit ropey, in my opinion. There are no grounds for allegations of fraud.

One of the things that arose from the case was the problem posed by the mediums themselves - their expectations and lack of knowledge and attention span, which the communicating sources had to battle to overcome. Their Spiritualism may have been more of a hindrance than a help.

My feeling is that advances can be made with mediums free from all the religious baggage - quite how that can be achieved is another question, of course. Spirtualist culture seems to be acting as an opaque filter which had best be removed if we are to press on and gain fresh insight.
 
In the end, though, it's the challengers who need to come up with the hard evidence. 'Incredible claims' and all that. The challenge to disprove that some incredible, untestable claim is in fact genuine, requires equipment and methodology that doesn't exist. Anyone proven satisfactorily that God either exists or doesn't? ;)

For example, a time machine could verify that the actual events claimed in the poltergeist case actually occurred as described, but that's about the only way. Otherwise it's all conjecture about people's stories, IMO.
 
The difference between Randi and Zammit's offers are obvious. Randi has stated that he will gladly give away the money but so far no-one has been able to demonstrate anything paranormal under test conditions.

Randi wants you to demonstrate your ability or the event in question in a measurable and controlled environment. Like a scientific experiment, it should be observable and repeatable today - live. He and his team will then adjust the parameters to weed out possible cheating. For example, you claim that you can cause matches to light themselves through only using the power of the mind. You are then questioned - Do you have to hold them? Do you have to look at them? Does it work with safety matches? etc etc

Afer this you then you show us and it works. The test part begins now when you have to do it again (making it repeatable) with my box of matches (that you may never touch) and are seperated from you by say a sheet of glass (or they are behind you) etc.

There are many people who have special conditions for their powers. I for example, can levitate but only when I'm alone and with all the lights off.

Zammit's offer is to disprove hearsay and past events through providing evidence to the contrary.

For example, the poltergeist activity surrounding a woman in Bavaria. Without actually being there to measure for electrical surges, ground tremors, environmental fluctuations in temperature and humidity, looking at the age and type of wiring etc etc then all of our attempts to explain the observed events would also just be conjecture. So we are pitching one theory against another. And the judge has a horse in the race.
 
Ringo said:
The difference between Randi and Zammit's offers are obvious.
Click to expand...
Zammit is offering money for verifying an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The hypothesis is; "There is an afterlife". You can't prove there isn't. Safe bet. For him.
 
Quick, tell Joe Nickell about it! He will show, without a shadow of doubt, that the prove is owls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top