The arguments in favor of spiritual extent or dimension are by their nature not evidentiary in physical terms.

I'm not arguing at all against spirituality (though I don't pretend to understand some of the fuzzy notions put around about it). I'm not Mr Spock and I do have my inner moments. I'm arguing against a pretty concrete notion, that there is a supernatural being who's in charge of all stuff and always was and ever will be. That is not spirituality. It's perfectly valid to require evidence before you'll believe stuff, including (and especially) stuff that apparently goes against all natural laws. God isn't my idea any more than a celestial teapot is my idea. I will believe in both or either once I have evidence. That isn't hard-nosed, it's normal and sensible. To believers, it's a very inconvenient demand, but that doesn't stop it from being a very valid demand.