Notice that the conclusion to the counter argument is that the occurrence of thinking and experience after death can not be known for certain. Does the author provide good reasons for this claim? Notice that the author states that the first argument claims that science is the only method by which things can be known. Is this correct? Is this really claimed in the first argument? If not, then to say such a claim was made, when it was not, does not strengthen the counter argument – if anything it weakens it, since it suggests that the person making the counter argument has not carefully considered the original. Also note that the author makes certain statements which are supposed to support the author's point of view, but gives no reason why these statements are true. For example, what evidence (or illustrative example) is given to support the claim that religion, meditation and mystical experience are indeed other ways things can come to be known? Would you be more convinced by the counter argument if evidence for this was given, or at least alluded to?