I am having trouble understanding the notion of logically possible or impossible when it comes to concepts given that all concepts (including mathematics) require a form of language.
For example, we consider a square triangle to be contradictory since a square has four sides and a triangle has three sides. But this hinges upon the notion of a side, triangle and square. The notion of a side or a triangle or a square may easily change in the future in a way that makes this logically possible.
What, then, really is the practical difference between a concept like a square triangle and a human coming alive after he dies. If, as understood, the definition of a human includes a person dying and staying in that state forever, then the notion of revival after death does become logically impossible. One can of course change this definition the same one can change the definition of a square or triangle.
What really is the inherent difference if both are language games for concepts we don’t know to be true. We don’t know what it would mean for a side or “square” or “triangle” to be defined in such a way where a “square triangle” is not a contradiction. Similarly, we don’t know what it would mean for a human to die and come alive.