dh8d1
It'd be more believable if it wasn't bizarre. And if it was proven.
Proof would make it less bizarre, but is unrealistic in many different ways. Proof after all, is scarce. Humans will label things "normal" even though it isn't proven. To what degree, can we even follow this principle? If a person is to label things as bizarre because of the lack of proof, then they are in danger of being a hypocrite.
To say that it would be more believable if it wasn't "bizarre" is based only on opinion and circumstances.
Henry Hobo-Master
One assumes that by obtaining perfection, that the desire of a God is to refrain from action.
Quote:
No. This is not assumption, this is by definition.
Quote:
per·fect (pûrfkt)
adj.
1.
Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
5.
a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.
9. Botany Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.
10. Grammar Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.
11. Music Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.
I'm having a hard time finding where your definition of perfect fits in. I suppose you could be talking about the first definition, but it doesn't sound like a perfect fit.
You seem to have a narrow definition of what God should be. If God is perfect, then God would not do anything more. To what basis, can we conclude that upon? Who is to say that a perfect being is limited?
There are many definitions of perfect. Is it not possible that you have the wrong one? I still stand on my point, that this is all one big assumption, and it depends on the definition one chooses to use.
Example of a contradicting definition: Perfection is the ability to perform an action flawlessly. One can be "perfect" at pushing red buttons for this very reason (assuming there are red buttons available to push). The trait of their "perfection" does not limit their actions. They can still push red buttons all they want, without being less perfect. Action does not determine what perfection can and cannot be, unless you are using a contradicting (or controversial) definition.
Quote:
We know that the tools used by specific religions are placebo. Prayer, afterlife, spirits, gods watching over you... those placebos are all used by many religions, mormonism is included.
Placebos are often used in controlled situations. Placebos are often used with "knowledge" of its fakeness. In other words, one cannot declare any specific religion a "placebo" unless they know its fake. It makes sense that there must be a few placebo effects placed in some or most religions.
But nobody can determine if Mormonism, or any other religion contains this "effect". We would first need physical proof that its fake; something most religions lack.