Life after death is impossible (by anon)

I cannot but help to respond to this comment on an earlier post.  The commenter says,

*******

…let me step in the middle of this argument about the "spiritual" world. I noticed the attempt to drive the opposition into submission by providing only two "possible" scenarios and forcing to choose between them. This is neither scientific nor reasonable. In most natural problems there can be near infinite possibilities, and to attempt to funnel it down to two for the sake of winning an argument is downright foolish…

…some people assert the foolishness of others' belief in a supreme being. It is equally foolish to state the lack of one. I'm not trying to say that there is one, or that there isn't one. What I'm really trying to say is that I don't know, and neither do you.  No amount of debate is going to change that.

*******

Ok, let me ask: should we believe that there is such a thing as a round square?  Notice that I am setting up potentially two sides, those who believe that there are round squares and those who believe there aren’t round squares.  Is this bad?  Not particularly since the side one should belong to is the last one.  People should not believe that there are round squares because they are impossible in virtue of the definition.  One can talk all one wants about infinite possibilities of things, but in this case a round square is impossible given definitions.  Period.

Now back to life after death.  If one sets up that life after death is a “spiritual” life AND that “spiritual” means that it is not earthly or physical, then BY DEFINITION one must say that life after death is impossible.  Here’s why.

1.    To say that one lives after death in a spiritual form is to say that one is still living somewhere after physical death.

2.    “Spiritual” means non-physical or non-material.  And this means that a spiritual being cannot have any spatial or temporal dimensions.

3.    To say that one is still living somewhere implies both spatial and temporal dimensions.  “Somewhere” implies some kind of location, some kind of point where something is, and this is a spatial dimension.  To “live” already implies some kind of subsistence from one moment to another.  There is then a temporal dimension.

4.    A contradiction arises between points 2 and 3 by definition ALONE.  That is why it is so confusing to ask, given the definition of point 2, where will I go when I die?  The only possible response is “nowhere” since it is a contradiction to say anything else.

5.    Therefore, life after death is impossible given the definition of point 2.  It is impossible just like the existence of a round square.

So one can jabber over infinite possibilities and the limits of knowledge, but that just doesn’t apply here.  I can well admit that I do not know everything.  Yet, I do know my definitions and how to use logic.  This is not anti-religion by any means.  It is just responsible philosophy.

The more interesting question to me is whether we change point 2 in some way.  What if “spiritual” means something like dark matter or energy (whatever that might really mean)?  Of course, the questions then become (a) where will I actually go then?, (b) is “heaven” actually findable?, (c) is God really living someplace?, (d) how would I still be conscious, and (e) how would I still be myself?  To these questions, I have no answers.