• 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

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,631
That's the prize put up by some Aussie lawyers (to counter the well known Skeptic's prize for PROVING the paranormal).

The boot is on the other foot! Put up or shut up, Randi et al!

victorzammit.com/challenge.html
Link is long dead. The latest viable (2003) version of the MIA webpage can be accessed at the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030208010321/http://www.victorzammit.com/challenge.html

$1 Million Challenge

Preface

One million dollars is offered to any skeptic who can rebut the evidence for the existence of the afterlife.

The afterlife is not just a speculative claim like there may be unicorns or there may be green cheese on the other side of the moon. There have been top scientists, genuine mediums, and thousands of others including empirical investigators like myself, who experienced psi and afterlife communication.

It is claimed that there is now a substantial body of evidence which supports the existence of the afterlife and which taken as a whole cannot be satisfactorily accounted for except by the existence of the afterlife.

I have had complaints from genuine psychics and those who support the validity of psychic phenomena that those who reject the existence of the afterlife have never really examined the evidence.

Psychics claim they experienced a great deal of frustration when they tried to apply for a highly publicised skeptics' one million dollar challenge. It was put to me that the skeptics' offer is not genuine. Also, it was suggested that the psychics ought to put up a similar challenge reflecting the skeptics' own conditions for the stated prize.

This is how this challenge originated. Naturally, the effort has to be commensurate with the very high cash reward. ...
Hey, perhaps lawyers aren't so bad after all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can never disprove something like this. You can only prove it, and then you need the cooperation of the dead.
What if they don't want to help?
 
I think that actual proof or disproof of the afterlife is not really the point here. The afterlife is just a case in point to argue the general methodology of proofs and disproofs, in particular countering James Randi's claims that, because no-one has claimed his $M prize for demonstrating the paranormal, then the paranormal does not exist.

As lawyers, this group is really showing a sense of humour in pointing out how restrictive Randi's conditions are, and that they effectively rule out anything which might be considered evidence in, say, a court of law, where personal experience rules. (Even if it is the evidence of a forensic scientist, it is still just his experience of the evidence, and these guys have been 'proved' wrong before - they are not gods.)

So, one cheer for lawyers!
 
Agreed. Just because you can not prove it doesn't exist doesn't mean it does. Just because you can not prove it does exist doesn't mean it doesn't. So far no one has 'proven' to anyone but themselves the existence or non-existence of the afterlife. Until we come up with new methods of evidence-gathering or some other kind of subjective breakthrough, the issue will remain up to each of us individually.
 
Yeah, but the general scientific and human approach is not to believe in something unless we have a reason to. That is why I don't run screaming out the door because it hasn't been disproved a giant spider is sitting next to me.
 
If you didn't personally experience a giant spider sitting next to you, and no-one else claimed there was one, then the evidence (in both legal and commonsense understanding) is that there is NOT one there! are the witness.

But if you want to discuss the afterlife, there is a lot of evidence for it (eg ghosts, reincarnation, past-life memories, religions such as Christianity, etc.). What the lawyers are suggesting is that this is an argument about how good (ie, convincing) the evidence is, and claiming that Skeptics can't disprove it, even if no-one can prove it either.

This is fine for Forteans, who aren't bothered by doubt. Only religious extremists at one end, and skeptics at the other, insist on having clear-cut answers.

(Good editorial on this in latest FT, BTW.)
 
As a fortean, I would like to have clear cut answeres, but I'm prepared to listen to arguments from both sides, but in this case each side cancels out the other, so we are still left in the dark.:confused:
 
Just because you are a skeptic doesn't mean you have clear cut answers. You can also say "I don't know". But if you have looked at the evidence and found none of it was good, then taking a stance that says "So far we have no reason to believe in afterlife" makes sense.
 
It's a real offer on Victor Zammit's page:

http://www.victorzammit.com/

$1 MILLION
CHALLENGE
7th YEAR!
One million dollars is offered to any closed minded skeptic who can rebut the existing evidence for life after death. Read more...

Closed-minded skeptics and other materialists: some of those whom are psychologists, ex-magicians, biologists, physicists and others, have miserably failed to rebut expressly stated evidence for the existence of the afterlife - life after death.

By contrast, more scientists, more physicists, more psychologists and more people in the professions and others are conceding the empirical evidence for the afterlife is just irrefutable.

This million dollar offer has been discussed by US medium Sylvia Browne on national television CNN LARRY KING Live - also cited and discussed on TIME WARNER, on US, UK, Australian radio stations, in newspapers, journals and goes to thousands every day to most countries around the world.

(The sponsors of the million dollars have extended the offer for another five years.)

He is also the author of the interestingly titled book A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife ....
 
i'm offering $2M to prove that the stock market is not controlled by a super-intelligent sheep called dave.
 
Awww... Are the little hard nosed skeptics complaining? :(

Come on! There's $1,000,000 just waiting to be picked up. All you have to do is prove that death's the end and it's yours. What could be simpler?

But, you're already complaining about the conditions of the challenge.

Tsk. Tsk.

:rofl:
 
I know how to prove it to him.

Collecting the money could be tricky though. Have to put in a carefully worded clause about conditions under which I can collect.
 
anome said:
I know how to prove it to him.

Collecting the money could be tricky though. Have to put in a carefully worded clause about conditions under which I can collect.
You might not get to enjoy it, where you'd be going after, either. :(
 
The offer is for real, and has been up and running for seven years...

Actually, it doesn't involve 'proving a negative'. All one has to do is refute the evidence presented in the book. All of it.

Easy! ;)
 
AndroMan said:
Awww... Are the little hard nosed skeptics complaining? :(

Come on! There's $1,000,000 just waiting to be picked up. All you have to do is prove that death's the end and it's yours. What could be simpler?

But, you're already complaining about the conditions of the challenge.

Tsk. Tsk.

:rofl:

That to me is the point! :D It's interesting when the tables are turned, Randi-ites should be pointed to this offer whenever somebody mentions his million dollar offer...
 
anome said:
I know how to prove it to him.

Collecting the money could be tricky though. Have to put in a carefully worded clause about conditions under which I can collect.
You'd be freaked out if he went and proved you wrong at that point...
 
A quote from his chapter on poltergeists in the USA. The writing in brackets is my debunking of his documented claims.

Der Rosenheimer Spuk

A most powerful poltergeist activity occurred in a lawyer's office in the Bavarian town of Rosenheim in 1967.

The poltergeist activity centered around a young eighteen year old secretary Annemarie Schneider. One morning when she first got the job at the office, she walked down the entrance hall. Witnesses stated that:

• the hanging lamp started to swing, (wind)
• the lamp in the cloakroom started to swing too, (also wind)
• a bulb directly above her exploded, (power serge)
• the fluorescent lighting went out in the next room, (fuse blown)

At other times:

• loud bangs were heard, (people in upstairs rooms)
• all the lights in the office went out at the same time, (circuit breaker)
• electrical fuses would blow without any cause, (fuses are supposed to blow)
• cartridges fuses ejected themselves from the sockets, (spring sockets broke)
• all four telephones would ring simultaneously with no one on the line, (faulty wiring)
• calls were frequently cut or interrupted for short periods, (more evidence to back up faulty wiring)
• telephone bills suddenly soared to very high levels, (office junior phoning adult phone lines)
• developing fluid in the photostatic copiers would often spill out without any disturbance, (faulty machinery)
• investigating technicians captured swinging lamps and frames on cameras, (wind again)
• physicists F Karger and G Zicha could not find anything wrong with the electrical and other material things in the office, (Just cos they couldnt, doesnt mean there wasnt anything wrong)
• drawers were witnessed opening by themselves, (this happens quite often with desks and filing cabinets, runners worn out)
• twice a 400 pound cabinet was seem to move by itself, (vibrations from passing lorry/train/areoplane)

Its easy for him to offer $1m to prove the after life doesnt exsist, but he isnt really making a straight forward offer, i can easily debunk all of the above happenings, but without them still going on now its hard to prove any of it. Real or false.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Painy said:
A quote from his chapter on poltergeists in the USA. The writing in brackets his my debunking of his documented claims. ...
(Wind) :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AndroMan Posted: 24-01-2005 22:30 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Painy wrote:
A quote from his chapter on poltergeists in the USA. The writing in brackets his my debunking of his documented claims.




...

(Wind)

Just an example of how easy it is to say its something else, who know's maybe they worked with windows open instead of air conditioning, these places still do exist!
 
The most convincing argument I've seen...

Hi,
I would be interested to see what anyone thinks of this site http://www.victorzammit.com. It's quite engrossing and well worth a look. Anyway, let me know...

[Emp edit: Making link work.]
 
...for the existance of an afterlife. This is my first posting so I'm delving through the subject matter for interesting topics. Thanks for the victor thread.
 
I've read through the discussions and I agree - there should be a thread for Zammit. I think he's been flitted over with a lack of views from either side. Do you find his literature compelling or doubtful ?
 
captainbirdspie said:
I've read through the discussions and I agree - there should be a thread for Zammit.

As there is already I've merged the threads.

captainbirdspie said:
Do you find his literature compelling or doubtful ?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by his literature. His articles:
www.victorzammit.com/articles/

and book?
www.victorzammit.com/book/

I find it all shaky and based on dubious assumptions - like he'd set out to prove a point and (at least as far as he is concerned) achieved his end. His "challenge" pretty much shows how dubious it all is.

What do you find so convincing.
 
I think the value of his book lies in its providing a short introduction to the case survivalists are making, with enough links and references to follow it up.

And that of course is the key - follow it up. Zammit is an enthusiast with an open agenda: war to the very knife with Skepticism. That does make him somewhat biased, of course. ;)

I think his challenge is a reasonable exercise - demonstarte that none of the case histories he has presented would stand up in a court of law, and you have pocketed a million. It is a straight forward exercise in critical reasoning.

As far as I'm concerned, if the challenge encourages people to do some research, exercise their minds and then enter the debate, it is all to the good.
 
Thats like saying I'll give you £1million if anybody can disprove my theory that invisible incorpral pan-dimensional meercats sit on everybodies shoulders and tell them to do bad things. And that they also hide 1 sock out of each pair you own given the chance.

It's impossible to disprove, or prove come to that, these sort of things.
 
Thats like saying I'll give you £1million if anybody can disprove my theory that invisible incorpral pan-dimensional meercats sit on everybodies shoulders and tell them to do bad things. And that they also hide 1 sock out of each pair you own given the chance.

It's impossible to disprove, or prove come to that, these sort of things.

Ah, but that is not what it is all about.

Take Poltergeists, for example. If I assert that, given the veracity of the Rosenheim case we have evidence of disincarnate intelligence, all you have to do to refute it is

a) Question the veracity of the evidence (giving your grounds for doing so) and demonstrate how that leads to another conclusion

b) Demonstrate how alternative conclusions can be drawn from the same material, leaving the matter open.

c) Demonstrate the argument rests upon flawed reasoning or untested assumptions

or

d) Demonstrate that another, better conclusion can be drawn from the material.

It is a philosophical exercise anyone can play. All it takes is a grasp of elementary logic and an ability to step outside one's prejudices.

Seriously, it is Informal Logic 101.

Statements like 'there is a rhino in my bedroom - disprove it' are not in the same category. It is not an argument, just an assertion that may or may not be true. In contrast, the EVP issue (for example) is a body of information which can be examined, tested and evaluated according to some simple rules - a conclusive judgement is not out of the question.

The focus of Zammit's challenge is not actually the phenomena, but the arguments for their existence, and their interpretation. They can be assessed without difficulty.

Have a crack at it - it's a lot of money for so little effort :)
 
Hi,
I suppose I could quote from his "literature" to create a solid argument but I have read the articles and related links and find it fascinating. I, like you, have searched for flaws in his writing but no, sorry nothing. What makes you so convinced that it is bogus?. Surely, the million dollar offer only adds creedence to his case rather than rendering it nonsense.
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
 
Back
Top