Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

[charlie sc]

I find that our tongues are created for praising.
Jesus gives a clue as to why ' worship and praise ' at Revelation 4:11
The reason given is because the God of the Bible is also the Creator who created all things.
The word ' father ' means ' life giver ', thus our Heavenly Father (Life Giver) is worthy of praise and thanks.
The fact that we exist, that we have life, is to the praise of His glory, His credit - Ephesians 1:12.

You didn't answer the question.
You, basically, said a supremely powerful entity is worthy or deserves praise.
However, you didn't say why you think a supremely powerful entity requires worship or praise.

Notice the difference?

 

[Quintessence]

I can see you're having a bit of difficulty.

Not really. Folks in my culture just have a really hard time wrapping their heads around a non-dualistic ontology since our culture is so insistent on the black-and-white "real vs not real" gig. It makes sense to me just fine. But it was my bad I didn't articulate what I meant by the "apparent world" and "otherworlds."

"Apparent world" = the extent of what folks like you call "real" or "physical"
"Otherworlds" = everything else; the stuff folks like you call "not real" or "imaginary"

That's a gross oversimplification, but it's the closest thing I have to the ontological dualism that is common in my culture and that you probably adhere to. So the translation of what I said when I mention I've never encountered a tooth fairy in the apparent world is to say, from your perspective, that it "isn't real" in my infinitesimally miniscule experience of the apparent world. From my point of view, though, statements like this are irrelevant for various reasons. None the least of which is that my experiences of the apparent world aren't even the equivalent of a single atom in the bottom of a teacup Like I said, humans are pretty much dumb hairless mammals who are specks of nothing in the grand scheme of reality just making it up as they go along. Draw the map that makes sense for what you are doing in your life, then move along with it.

However, as far as I'm aware, you can't actually visit Westeros the same way you can visit China, lol , as much as I'd like to

Why does it have to be the same way? I don't think it has to be. Maybe you have the wealth to visit China, but I can no sooner visit China in the apparent world than I can visit Westeros in the apparent world. We can still visit anyplace and anywhere and anytime by using this sadly undervalued and tremendously underrated tool called imagination. Stripped down to its basics, my rejection of ontological dualism boils down to a couple things, one of which is valuing the power of idea and imagination.

So, tell me, how can we study your deities outside of literature or perhaps you think we can study Westeros since it's real?

There are lots of tools for learning. Like I mention above, a seriously underrated tool is imagination. It usually gets called something else by occultists and mystics (like "journeying" or "vision quests" or what have you), but stripped of all the fancy terminology? It's using your imagination. Imagination is power, imagination is knowledge. It is one way of knowing among many. Personal experience is another way of knowing, and central to pretty much any human. Some fancy looking to external authorities as well, or philosophy as a way of knowing. The sciences are very popular these days too as a way of knowing; it's certainly a path I took with my undergrad and grad-level studies.

In any case, all these ways of knowing can be used in various contexts... both appropriately and inappropriately. Being non-dualist ontologically means ways of knowing become more important because it contextualizes how something is real to you. How do I know about this thing? What tools can I use to get to know it better? Experiences? Sciences? Folklore? Logic? They are all possible tools. I don't like limiting my toolbox, I guess, unless it makes sense to for what I'm doing.

It seems like hypocrisy here, What if their experience delves into real and not real, exist and not exist. Are you then listening to these people?

I try to. I aim to understand all sorts of maps of the territory folks use. I'm pretty good at it, but I'm not going to say I always succeed or that there aren't limits to what I can wrap my head around. There are also times I draw some boundaries. Knowledge is power - it is power over the thing known, and it is power over the knower. There are some paths of knowledge that are dangerous to walk.

I'm sorry, but I'm starting to notice either confusion or intellectual dishonesty.

You know one of my pet peeves? Folks on the internet misusing the phrase "intellectual dishonesty." We're not doing research here and nobody has violated any research ethics. We aren't writing a research paper so nobody has left out key references when writing a publication. So let's please not get on the stupid train that steams into calling someone's worldview "intellectually dishonest" because one particular idea within it doesn't universally apply to all possible contexts and scenarios. People's worldviews don't work that way and are not intended to work that way in the first place. Context and specifics are always important, especially for someone who has told you they paradigm shift (aka, they do not limit themselves to one worldview). Just stop.

I get you want to give thanks or worship grass, sure. What I don't get is why you call it god. Why not just say you worship the sea?

That which people or cultures deem worthy of worship are gods (or whatever cultural word a people use). You don't have to get it. They aren't gods to you. Nor should you call them such if you do not deem them worthy of worship. That would only be creating false gods in your way of life.

In any case, I really don't expect people to understand. Monotheist/Western (especially Protestant Christian) theological/religious assumptions are almost hard-coded into most people's brains in my culture. Thinking outside of that box to grasp other theologies on their own terms is hard work. I say that based on personal experience.

 

[charlie sc]

Not really. Folks in my culture just have a really hard time wrapping their heads around a non-dualistic ontology since our culture is so insistent on the black-and-white "real vs not real" gig. It makes sense to me just fine. But it was my bad I didn't articulate what I meant by the "apparent world" and "otherworlds."

"Apparent world" = the extent of what folks like you call "real" or "physical"
"Otherworlds" = everything else; the stuff folks like you call "not real" or "imaginary"

That's a gross oversimplification, but it's the closest thing I have to the ontological dualism that is common in my culture and that you probably adhere to. So the translation of what I said when I mention I've never encountered a tooth fairy in the apparent world is to say, from your perspective, that it "isn't real" in my infinitesimally miniscule experience of the apparent world. From my point of view, though, statements like this are irrelevant for various reasons. None the least of which is that my experiences of the apparent world aren't even the equivalent of a single atom in the bottom of a teacup Like I said, humans are pretty much dumb hairless mammals who are specks of nothing in the grand scheme of reality just making it up as they go along. Draw the map that makes sense for what you are doing in your life, then move along with it.



Why does it have to be the same way? I don't think it has to be. Maybe you have the wealth to visit China, but I can no sooner visit China in the apparent world than I can visit Westeros in the apparent world. We can still visit anyplace and anywhere and anytime by using this sadly undervalued and tremendously underrated tool called imagination. Stripped down to its basics, my rejection of ontological dualism boils down to a couple things, one of which is valuing the power of idea and imagination.



There are lots of tools for learning. Like I mention above, a seriously underrated tool is imagination. It usually gets called something else by occultists and mystics (like "journeying" or "vision quests" or what have you), but stripped of all the fancy terminology? It's using your imagination. Imagination is power, imagination is knowledge. It is one way of knowing among many. Personal experience is another way of knowing, and central to pretty much any human. Some fancy looking to external authorities as well, or philosophy as a way of knowing. The sciences are very popular these days too as a way of knowing; it's certainly a path I took with my undergrad and grad-level studies.

In any case, all these ways of knowing can be used in various contexts... both appropriately and inappropriately. Being non-dualist ontologically means ways of knowing become more important because it contextualizes how something is real to you. How do I know about this thing? What tools can I use to get to know it better? Experiences? Sciences? Folklore? Logic? They are all possible tools. I don't like limiting my toolbox, I guess, unless it makes sense to for what I'm doing.



I try to. I aim to understand all sorts of maps of the territory folks use. I'm pretty good at it, but I'm not going to say I always succeed or that there aren't limits to what I can wrap my head around. There are also times I draw some boundaries. Knowledge is power - it is power over the thing known, and it is power over the knower. There are some paths of knowledge that are dangerous to walk.





You know one of my pet peeves? Folks on the internet misusing the phrase "intellectual dishonesty." We're not doing research here and nobody has violated any research ethics. We aren't writing a research paper so nobody has left out key references when writing a publication. So let's please not get on the stupid train that steams into calling someone's worldview "intellectually dishonest" because one particular idea within it doesn't universally apply to all possible contexts and scenarios. People's worldviews don't work that way and are not intended to work that way in the first place. Context and specifics are always important, especially for someone who has told you they paradigm shift (aka, they do not limit themselves to one worldview). Just stop.



That which people or cultures deem worthy of worship are gods (or whatever cultural word a people use). You don't have to get it. They aren't gods to you. Nor should you call them such if you do not deem them worthy of worship. That would only be creating false gods in your way of life.

In any case, I really don't expect people to understand. Monotheist/Western (especially Protestant Christian) theological/religious assumptions are almost hard-coded into most people's brains in my culture. Thinking outside of that box to grasp other theologies on their own terms is hard work. I say that based on personal experience.

We've basically hit a point we can't get passed in our dialogue. I would have really liked if you answered my simple questions(not all were about belief, one was about an action you'd take in a possible scenario), but you're not obligated to, nor do I think it's productive for me to keep insisting.
I have learned some some things though. You may correct me if I'm wrong.

You don't like the idea of dualistic ontology and anything related to these ideas dualistic thoughts(I.E. you paradigm shift). So, exist vs non-exist, real vs not-real and meaningless statements to "nonsense." You don't seem to want to classify any statement as true or false but you do differentiate between Apparent worlds vs Otherworlds. You also seem to differentiate between some ideas, like the OP's hypothetical being impossible.
In your view, humans are, "dumb hairless mammals," that are specks considering the grand scheme of reality and certain ideologies are hard-coded into people's brains and culture.
You think gods exist as representations/symbols of reality, are deserving of worship depending on the individual, and, even though you frown upon it, you'll sometimes anthropomorphise these gods according to your tradition.

Thanks for the discussion. If you're going to correct me, please, I'm begging you, make it concise and to the point. I know this is not your usually method of writing, but try for my sake.

Thanks

Oh, and of course, you're welcome to discuss and ask me anything I believe.

 

[Quintessence]

I would have really liked if you answered my simple questions(not all were about belief, one was about an action you'd take in a possible scenario), but you're not obligated to, nor do I think it's productive for me to keep insisting.

I did answer, though.

I mean, if you are hoping for simple-minded this-or-that responses from someone like me, that's not going to happen. I'm not an either-or, black-or-white thinker. The closest I've got to "concise and to the point" is to understand I am a pluralist. I don't lock myself in to one way of thinking about the world. Instead I am able to shift between different paradigms as needed or desired. Paradigm shifting is really useful when you are into both the creative arts and the sciences. I don't go "this is true, the end" because I see it as "this is provisionally true, under these conditions, with those parameters, and given this set of assumptions (which are subject to debate)." Put another way, I was born with the critical thinking switch stuck in the "on" position. It sucks sometimes.

On the plus side, I've mellowed out and shifted from the nagging "why, why why?!" to to more of a "why not, that sounds interesting and fun so let's explore this and learn more about it!" Is the tooth fairy real? Why not? Sounds like fun! But seriously, though, for all practical purposes and as far as your worldview is probably concerned, no. Not really a thing. Just like the world being flat isn't really a thing. And that me having a soul that can be lost if I don't pay some weirdo money isn't a thing. Also, those are pretty boring answers. It's much more fun to put on a different perspective for a while, get outside, and play. And gods know our world could use a lot more fantasy and whimsy these days. Just not so much that it becomes escapism.

 

[lukethethird]

Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

Nothing to kill or die for, hmm, might have to invent one.

 

[Bird123]

Basically, if I think like you then I'm right and if I don't I'm wrong. Great.
Unfortunately, this is a conversation closer and anyone can do it. I don't mind you saying I'm wrong but then give a reason why and give me a chance for rebuttal. I am wrong for, _________ and _________, because ___cats eat stuff(example)_____

Here's a question for you. Have you ever thought why a supremely powerful entity requires worship and praise?

That's an easy question to answer. God does not require or even request praise and/or worship. This is mankind's concept and belief.

I have found no religion that really understands God. I think it is a mistake to assume what they say is right. As I see it. Everyone is capable of discovering for themselves rather than blindly relying on the beliefs of others.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one could have. It's not about right or wrong. I point you in a direction I know is right. Neither God nor I am making any demands on your choices. I surely do not want everyone in the world to think exactly alike. How boring would that be? On the other hand, the real truth is the real truth. It does not change on a feeling or whim.

 

[charlie sc]

That's an easy question to answer. God does not require or even request praise and/or worship. This is mankind's concept and belief.

Which god are we talking about here? I was assuming you were a Christian. How do you find this information?

I have found no religion that really understands God. I think it is a mistake to assume what they say is right. As I see it. Everyone is capable of discovering for themselves rather than blindly relying on the beliefs of others.
God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one could have. It's not about right or wrong. I point you in a direction I know is right. Neither God nor I am making any demands on your choices. I surely do not want everyone in the world to think exactly alike. How boring would that be? On the other hand, the real truth is the real truth. It does not change on a feeling or whim.

Ah, so how did you understand god? Like, does god talk to you or something?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You didn't answer the question.
You, basically, said a supremely powerful entity is worthy or deserves praise.
However, you didn't say why you think a supremely powerful entity requires worship or praise.
Notice the difference?

I think Revelation 4:11 lets us know why a 'supremely power entity' (Creator) requires worship and praise.
Without a Creator we would Not have life. We owe our life, our very existence, our breath, to our Creator.
God gifted Earth to us for us to enjoy ( Not bring Earth to ruin - Rev. 11:18 B) - Psalms 115:16.
When a loving father gifts his children with loving gifts, then that appreciating child will praise his father.
The gifts the father gives are only possible because of a loving Creator, a loving Heavenly Father.
So, although we do Not worship a fleshly father, we can worship a Heavenly Father who created all things.
Plus, a fleshly father (life giver) can't grant us 'everlasting life', but our Heaven Father can.
Without ' godly requirements ' there could Not be lasting life and lasting peace on earth.
Mankind's long history has proven that point beyond all doubt that man can't establish Peace on Earth.
A fleshly father can't produce a son who can usher in Peace on Earth, but our Heavenly Father sent a heavenly Son to Earth for us, and Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will establish lasting Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill and grant such people everlasting life either in Heaven for some, or for most people everlasting life on a Earth forever.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's an easy question to answer. God does not require or even request praise and/or worship. This is mankind's concept and belief.
I have found no religion that really understands God.................

I find in Scripture that Jesus really understands his God.
Jesus taught at John 4:23-24 that true worshippers will worship the Father, his God.
So, yes God does require 'godly requirements' such as keeping Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35.
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, we are Now to love neighbor ' more ' than self.
This is the Bible's concept whether one believes in God or not, it is what is recorded in Scripture for all to see.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion Nothing to kill or die for, hmm, might have to invent one.

Nothing to kill or die for is the Bible's scenario because as Psalms 46:9 says God will stop wars earth wide.
Thus, the time is coming when there will be nothing to kill or die for because through Jesus, as Prince of Peace, he will establish Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
The 'executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of wicked war-like people and only humble meek (peaceable) people will be left on Earth to inherit the Earth as Jesus promised from Psalms 37:9-11.
The time is soon coming to see the fulfillment of the words found at Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16 then there will be No one to kill or die for, because there will be ' healing ' for earth's nations as promised at Revelation 22:2.
This coming Peace on Earth is why we are all invited to pray the invitation of Revelation 22:20 for Jesus to come !

 

[charlie sc]

I think Revelation 4:11 lets us know why a 'supremely power entity' (Creator) requires worship and praise.
Without a Creator we would Not have life. We owe our life, our very existence, our breath, to our Creator.
God gifted Earth to us for us to enjoy ( Not bring Earth to ruin - Rev. 11:18 B) - Psalms 115:16.
When a loving father gifts his children with loving gifts, then that appreciating child will praise his father.
The gifts the father gives are only possible because of a loving Creator, a loving Heavenly Father.
So, although we do Not worship a fleshly father, we can worship a Heavenly Father who created all things.
Plus, a fleshly father (life giver) can't grant us 'everlasting life', but our Heaven Father can.
Without ' godly requirements ' there could Not be lasting life and lasting peace on earth.
Mankind's long history has proven that point beyond all doubt that man can't establish Peace on Earth.
A fleshly father can't produce a son who can usher in Peace on Earth, but our Heavenly Father sent a heavenly Son to Earth for us, and Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will establish lasting Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill and grant such people everlasting life either in Heaven for some, or for most people everlasting life on a Earth forever.

Interesting reply. So, can you be a true Christian and not worship God? It seems like you're saying here, in bold, that if you don't worship God you won't get a place in Heaven?
What I'm trying to ask, from your reply, are there consequences for not worshipping god? This question might actually answer why a supremely powerful entity requires worship or it'll need a followup question.

 

[Bird123]

Which god are we talking about here? I was assuming you were a Christian. How do you find this information?


Ah, so how did you understand god? Like, does god talk to you or something?

There is only one God regardless of how many religions there are. I was raised a christian, however it does not take long for a thinking adult to realize it doesn't add up. At this point, I started a journey to discover the real truth regardless of what that truth turned out to be.

One can discover so much by watching the actions of another. This is the path I took. Look around you. All the answer wait to be discovered. As with all knowledge, doors you open will lead to others doors for advancement along with a wider view. More knowledge always creates a wider view bringing new ideas of thought.

Just like all the physics of this world add up so will everything about God. Religions push the emotional part of God. Let's not forget a Being capable of creating all this has an intellectual part. I see this as a better path to discover the truth and to find God.

Finally, then I must go, remember the people factor adds up as well. Knowledge exists beyond the surface just like looking at a person and never seeing DNA exists. I think one could study a lifetime and never see it all. On the other hand, one can come to understand what is really going on.

 

[charlie sc]

Finally, then I must go, remember the people factor adds up as well.

Thank you for the sermon and not really explaining anything, but I do appreciate it.

 

[Bird123]

I find in Scripture that Jesus really understands his God.
Jesus taught at John 4:23-24 that true worshippers will worship the Father, his God.
So, yes God does require 'godly requirements' such as keeping Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35.
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, we are Now to love neighbor ' more ' than self.
This is the Bible's concept whether one believes in God or not, it is what is recorded in Scripture for all to see.

Scriptures are written by Mankind. Is it God you want or is it Mankind?

OK, can you agree that God is Unconditional Love? If you say yes, do you know what Unconditional Love really is?

Next, Are godly requirements really Unconditional Love? Are the conditions with your religion for salvation really fit under Unconditional Love?

If you say God is not Unconditional Love, I would see your God lacking in intelligence. Think. Isn't Unconditional Love the only way to really be??

 

[atanu]

Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

If memory of all concepts disappears with consciousness intact, then one beholds the infinite only.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Interesting reply. So, can you be a true Christian and not worship God? It seems like you're saying here, in bold, that if you don't worship God you won't get a place in Heaven?
What I'm trying to ask, from your reply, are there consequences for not worshipping god? This question might actually answer why a supremely powerful entity requires worship or it'll need a followup question.

That would be silly to say a true Christian would Not worship God . See what Jesus instructed at John 4:23-24.
Right, one would have to worship God in order to be resurrected to Heaven.
Only those of mankind who have a first or earlier resurrection can go to Heaven - Revelation 20:6; Rev. 5:9-10.
They have two (2) jobs to do while in Heaven:
1) They will govern over Earth or over earthly subjects as kings for righteousness taking care of governmental duties.
2) They will serve mankind on Earth as priests meaning taking care of spiritual responsibilities towards earth's people.
Those people resurrected to Heaven are like those of Luke 22:28-30.
As for the rest of resurrected mankind they can have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection back to life on Earth.
ALL the resurrections that Jesus performed where physical resurrections.
Jesus was giving us a glimpse of the future. The people Jesus resurrected gives us a preview, or a coming attraction, of what Jesus will be doing during his 1,000-year reign over Earth in resurrecting the dead - Revelation 1:18.

The bad consequences for those who prove to be wicked are as Psalms 92:7 says: will simply be ' destroyed forever '
In other words, the wicked will 'perish' never to see life again neither in Heaven nor everlasting life on Earth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Scriptures are written by Mankind. Is it God you want or is it Mankind?
OK, can you agree that God is Unconditional Love? If you say yes, do you know what Unconditional Love really is?
Next, Are godly requirements really Unconditional Love? Are the conditions with your religion for salvation really fit under Unconditional Love?
If you say God is not Unconditional Love, I would see your God lacking in intelligence. Think. Isn't Unconditional Love the only way to really be??

The last time I looked around I found only mankind writes anything.
Scripture informs us at 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Bible writers were putting down God's thoughts for us.
That is why among the many Bible writers we can see the internal harmony among them.
Even the Golden Rule has conditions or requirements applied to it to love neighbor as self.
So, No , God's love is Not Unconditional. The 'Law of Love' has requirements.
Jesus New commandment or requirement at John 13:34-35 says we are now to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has. In other words, we are required to now love neighbor ' more ' than self. More than the Golden Rule.
I find Matthew 12:32 B shows God's love is with conditions.

 

[Riders]

Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

Then we would be dependent on nature like prehistory was, and use nature for symbols and be one with the sun.

 

[Bird123]

Thank you for the sermon and not really explaining anything, but I do appreciate it.

If I describe the blue sky and clouds, is it really a sermon. One can do such things without requiring anything from you. I require nothing of you.

Perhaps, I am explaining more than you realize.No one was pointing for me when I started my journey.

Now if religion has corrupted your view into wanting everything served up on a plate so you can choose to believe or not,I try never to do that. So much more is learned along the path to discover anything and that includes the path to discover reality. Discovery takes work. Sometimes the roughest road will end up with the best view.

 

[Kilk1]

You raised a number of thoughtful questions to consider, questions I couldn't answer with just a few sentences.

Yes, you're getting to what I'm saying and perhaps we can examine it further. Fortuitously, we can examine this video, find the people involved and the local news did actually call the hospital, where they found no death certificate. Unfortunately, we can't do this with Jesus Christ. However, this is not entirely the point of what I'm trying to say.

I get what you're saying; it would be nice to have video evidence to examine. However, even videos can be fabricated. Conversely, there are many events in ancient history that we can verify confidently today. Jesus' crucifixion is recorded in the Gospels as well as by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18:3:3), Tacitus (Annals 15:44), Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11–13), and Mara bar Serapion. John Dominic Crossan, resurrection skeptic and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, was right when he wrote, "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145, quoted online here).

Could it be that although Jesus was crucified, maybe He somehow survived His execution? A 1986 study from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found such not to be the case: "Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross."

Unlike with the person from South Africa, it's clear Jesus really died.

Let's just assume, for arguments sake, this was real. The dead guy was resurrected and he was actually dead.

Does this mean either one of them is god, god-did-it and everything they say henceforth or prior is now is truth?

Please, answer this question.

This is a good question, so let's back up. Now in this hypothetical scenario, we have a preacher who claims to be working for God. He claims he can prove it by raising someone from the dead. Suddenly, he does everything in the video, and the dead guy arises. I'd be skeptical, so let's say we check the records and discover that the dead man was put to death by electrocution. I would say first off that it would contradict what we know about how nature works: that dead people don't rise. Therefore, the cause must be outside nature.

But what is the cause? It's not like a miracle can come with a label telling us. Or can it? Again, if this person claimed God was with him and that he could raise someone from the dead, and suddenly, against nature, this happens--I mean, what better way could God confirm He was with someone? So my answer would be that yes, God did it.

What would you conclude in this scenario?

It's not incompatible, but we need to go through a few stages first. We have to assume it was actually Jesus that witnesses saw. I say assume because sometimes eye witness testimony is not reliable or accurate. For instance, people still see Elvis.

Elvis? Actually, back when I did a debate with the admin of edeb.com, he also brought this up. Such can be explained by Elvis' many impersonators running around. Are you suggesting that maybe someone was impersonating Jesus? Surely you don't think this could have convinced skeptics like then-church persecutor Saul, do you?

Maybe you're referring to the non-skeptics who knew Jesus better. In the debate, however, even my opponent conceded that "the less somebody knew Jesus, the more likely they are to have been convinced by an impersonator" and that "impersonation is considerably easier to do if you're not a close associate of the person being impersonated" (emphasis added).

I don't know if that's where you were going; Edeb8's admin posited it, anyway. Regardless, the idea fails to explain most, if not all, of the named resurrection witnesses recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

We have to assume Jesus was dead, because this was the ancient world and medicine was, well, not good. Some people are by mistakenly buried alive Premature burial - Wikipedia.

This isn't a baseless assumption but rather is grounded in what it means to be crucified; let's just say Jesus wasn't slapped on the wrist. Again, "Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross."

We also have to assume there was no fabrication in the story.

Neither is this assumed. Virtually all of even secular scholarship accepts Jesus' crucifixion as fact. Again, Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan said Jesus' crucifixion is "as sure as anything historical can ever be." Bart Ehrman, North America's leading resurrection skeptic, rated it something "we can say with virtual certainty about Jesus."

Furthermore, in the words of Germany's leading resurrection skeptic, Gerd Lüdemann, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80, quoted online here).

None of the story's key elements are challenged.

So, let's assume this was all accurate and Jesus was really dead. Let's say Jesus was really dead for three days, or whatever, and he was somehow resurrected(btw resurrection already implies someone else did it, which is problematic). I don't see how the only logical explanation is god.

(I think you're confusing resurrection with raising when you say it "implies someone else did it." Even then, God [the Father] raising Jesus isn't "problematic" but Scriptural [1 Thess. 1:9-10].) To say you "don't see how the only logical explanation is god" implies you could see one or more alternative explanations. What might those be? Sorry for keeping you waiting.