Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy?

[emjay]

Presumably not in The Divine Comedy? So why does he in that describe heaven, hell, and purgatory, in this other much more vividly imaginative sense... of a realm in space and time... of various levels and with distinct and imaginative 'sin-centric' punishments etc. If he really views heaven as a single everlasting moment of bliss, and presumably hell as something like the opposite (? ie something like a single moment of everlasting pain/suffering), then even if not literal how could the description in Divine Comedy be considered in any way analoguous, allegorical or symbolic (ie of a single, everlasting moment)?

The Divine Comedy is a comedy, it is intended to make people laugh, not to teach them what afterlife is like. Any more than Charlie and Chocolate Factory is intended to teach about how chocolate factories work.

Nah, it's not a comedy in that sense. Have you read it? What it is is very surreal, imaginative etc, but what it is not, is funny.

ETA: I've just asked ChatGPT why it's called a comedy, and basically it says that in those times, a comedy was a specific type of literature that had a happy or positive ending, different from the use of the word today, to denote humour.