Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy?

[arewethereyet]

The JW's won't accept a blood transfusion to save a life. Somehow that makes me think they aren't going to eat a person for dinner.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So you are going from forum to forum with the same nonsense?

Do you keep doing that till you get an answer that you like?

It's just that I am far more likely to get a response from somebody who knows about Jehovah's Witnesses theology on Christianity StackExchange than here. And that cannibalism argument isn't mine at all. If I remember correctly, Keith Augustine also used it in one of his papers, and cited somebody else related to that argument. They probably have a somewhat-sensible response to it.

There is no case to be made. It’s a thoroughly stupid argument against resurrection. As Nudger said, a new body can be readily supplied. In fact, in a lot of cases, a new body would have to be supplied.

Suppose a Witness died in righteousness 50 years and was buried. Would God resurrect them as a rotting corpse or simply shove them into a new body that didn’t have bits dropping off? Or is blown to teeny tiny bits in a terror attack? Or is incinerated in a house fire? What is to prevent a universe-creating god from smooshing up a bunch of stray atoms and reconstituting a body?

Boru