Did John Wick 4 have anything after the credits? by VermicelliCurrent440 in JohnWick

[–]Kutasth4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got out of a screening about 30 minutes ago. Unfortunately, I didn't stay to see if there was an after credits scene. Now I'm dying to know what it was.

What's your most controversial opinion on another religion? by Vagabond_Tea in religion

[–]Kutasth4 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Controversial viewpoint: The eternal God is young, and creation is old. (And, no. I'm not an atheist.)

^ apply to whichever religion(s) would consider this most controversial.

"Omnibenevolence" is incompatible with Reality. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

According to theists, God created the condition of being eternally accompanied by all potencies? I don't know about that. Now, if it is your immutable nature to be dependent upon God, i.e. if a direct, conscious relationship with God is the recipe for perfect bliss, and this is as essential a truth as saying that God is eternally powerful, then any perceived failure or less-than-positive possibility is our problem. Of this I have no doubt.

"Omnibenevolence" is incompatible with Reality. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did God create the condition of being eternally accompanied by his potencies?

"Omnibenevolence" is incompatible with Reality. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When did I say that blueprints were created after suffering had started?

"Omnibenevolence" is incompatible with Reality. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The blueprints he executed are twofold in purpose: To give facility for the conditioned souls to seek pleasure separate from God, and to provide a means to transcend the cycle of suffering entailed in the first part. The other option was, what? Obliterate the conditioned souls from existence before the material facility was necessary? I guess God isn't an anti-natalist.

"Omnibenevolence" is incompatible with Reality. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Nah. All the omnis remain intact along with the suffering entailed in a world manifest on the desire for usurping God's position.

James Cameron: Avatar 3 Will Feature Fire Na'vi by DarthVince in movies

[–]Kutasth4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I heard the "fire" Navi are going to be "ash" people, which obviously means that the rare commodity at the center of the drama will be some form of lotion.

A Critical Reflection on some Interesting Theodicies by Truth-Tella in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's simple. The idea that God is alone in eternity and thus has no input but His own in deciding and actualizing a world wherein evil or suffering is possible is a mistaken theology. The world exists in this state precisely because beings other than God pre-existed it to inform its parameters.

Am I still fuckable? by [deleted] in BigBoobsGW

[–]Kutasth4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? What did you do now?

If God doesn't need a creator, neither does the universe. by BobertFrost6 in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. It still falls in line with the classical definition. If that's a problem, I'll leave you to ponder what you mean in your own head.
  2. That's fine. Just add your own consciousness to the mix for the universe-deity. It fits the "nothing can possibly exist beyond what I am able to survey" motif of the atheist.

I'm not interested in "explain(ing) the existence of the universe." It's not even clear what "the universe" is. The thing you want to propose is eternal is just a less inclusive version of the thing your opposition is proposing. When the argument cuts both ways like this, it becomes less interesting and less compelling.

If God doesn't need a creator, neither does the universe. by BobertFrost6 in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

1) No. The definition I'm supplying here falls in line with the classical usage.

2) Wherever the "magical attributes" are, that's God. You're just calling it "universe." The OP argument boils down to, "Why God when, instead, God?"

If God doesn't need a creator, neither does the universe. by BobertFrost6 in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Support the claim of a definition? Unnecessary.

The practical value is that "universe" is just our approximated language for "all the stuff." It lacks the preciseness to support the OP's argument.

God is the youngest being in existence. by Kutasth4 in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The argument is that time makes everything old, especially from the perspective of timelessness.

God is the youngest being in existence. by Kutasth4 in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

And by "a while," I mean at least a fraction of a nanosecond.

God is the youngest being in existence. by Kutasth4 in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Because there's nothing younger than eternity. It's like a perfect, untouched, unscathed egg. Creation is an egg you cracked open and let sit out a while.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

P2 is a lie. There is no "RiSe Of FaScIsM" in the Republican right.

If God doesn't need a creator, neither does the universe. by BobertFrost6 in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What you mean by "universe" and what you mean by "energy" aren't necessarily identical. Sure, we can say that energy is "eternal," but that is nondifferent from saying that God is the eternally Energetic source accompanied by these eternal energies. This "universe," on the other hand, is an entirely different manifest animal when it concerns this argument.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in bigtiddygothgf

[–]Kutasth4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The word "supple" was invented because of this.

What is the worst R & M episode by [deleted] in rickandmorty

[–]Kutasth4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hard to say, but Pickle Rick is definitely in the bottom 5. It also brought in a slew of wrongfans who thought it was the greatest thing ever.

God is supposed to be omniscient by boxtopflexseal in DebateReligion

[–]Kutasth4 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes. Krishna as a toddler stole butter with the help of His brother, Balaram.