Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Brinne]

You understand why I used hell as an example right? If the conditions in Zodiark were so horrific as to necessitate any cost in order to free them, then finding individuals who don’t seem to be immediately concerned with their current circumstances would contradict that no? I think it better that we don’t subject unknowing innocents to that fate then, if it is as terrible as you say.

Once again, yes, you are agreeing that this is your logic - that "if a single individual seems, to my estimation, okay within a terrible environment, even if the majority of others around them are in explicit anguish, then everyone should be okay with it and any anguish expressed can be disregarded." In which case, we've hit another one of those impasses where I can't do anything but shrug and go, sure - I personally believe that logic is deeply fallacious, deeply callous, and overlaps with the excuses one often hears to dismiss all manner of poor conditions and mistreatment ("I was beaten as a child, and I turned out fine!"), but all right. I can't convince anyone to care about the demonstrable pain of others when they're looking for any excuse to pretend it isn't valid.

What evidence. Anyder survived the damage with concepts intact. Why was it not reduced to its base aether?

You... you yourself pointed out Dynamis snuffs out aether. It was explicitly stated in the text that the world was dead, necessitating the use of Ancient souls for the massive amount of aether needed to fuel Zodiark. This sacrifice has never been painted by anything in the story besides noble and laudable. To use your words, you are denying the premise of the text here, and I'm not sure for what - to suggest the Ancients were not acting out of necessity and desperation when they used themselves as sacrifices, but, like, laziness? Is that your ultimate hypothesis here?

This is the god in the gaps argument. You can’t use the lack the evidence to the contrary as proof of something existing.

Uh, I was never trying to prove anything existed. That was in reply to your question of "so why didn't Elidibus do this?" and I answered with "we have no specific or concrete details on exactly what he did."

And yet previous sacrifices did not necessitate the Sundering. The third sacrifice was the breaking point. Why in your opinion, is that the case?

Because you're mistaking the "stealing" in the metaphor as being the stand-in for "sacrifice" in general, when it is not. The stand-in is, again, the ideological factor of "looking back" and "not embracing suffering." The first two sacrifices didn't hit Venat as indicating guilt of those emotional crimes. The third did.