I say they are the same as I have defined them. You are welcome to define them any way you choose and or pick a term that describes what they are. Or not. But until somebody is willing to debate the concept with me and the few others who acknowledge the existence of unalienable rights as I have defined them, we are stuck on petty semantics and will get nowhere.
It doesn't matter what term or phrase we use. What matters is the concept that the term or phrase means. So I ask you again to define the terms in a coherent way that others will understand what you mean.
As I understand things, some rights may be inalienable (or unalienable if you prefer), but that cannot be proven.
Some rights may be god-given, but that cannot be proven either.
And some rights may be natural, but THAT cannot be proven.
So to say that a certain set of rights are all three seems at the least equally unprovable, especially since it was ALSO my understanding that while a right might possibly be all three, they are in no way interdependent.
I mean, if you're talking a god-given right, then god could just as easily take said right away.
If you're talking about a natural right, then if/when we transfer our consciousness into a different form/container (whether we're talking a some "heaven" analog or a technological container at some point in the future is of little bearing on that) then our nature changes, and thus our natural rights change.
And if you're talking about inalienable rights, I would argue that any right I can think of thus far can be removed from you (albeit doing so may result in your death).
That said, I DO think that there are some rights that cannot be removed from us unless we are killed - thus, they cannot be taken from us when we are still alive unless we voluntarily give them up.
Granted many people give up rights if they are threatened with death...