|
|
A new comic page every day!
 Gaia in German/auf DeutschSandra and Woo (my comedy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
|
| Gaia is supported by our patron tilingogringo. Thank you very much! |
|
Breaking All Barriers 113
└ posted on Wednesday, 24 April 2024, by Novil
Click here to see the comments!
Gaia by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2004 – 2025 Oliver Knörzer
The “people are bad, but God wants us to be free, but free will is suffering” speech is overdone through no fault of Oliver. I feel that this speech should have been done a second time with a few changes, given to Gaia by Malva, in the ending. Gaia being the only one who didn’t show up, after all.
Vicious Sand wrote:
I think the guidance Malva produced is perfectly fine and believable. The words served the purpose of comforting Vivi who was troubled by her life challenges. I don’t even think Gaia herself plays a role of any importance in this exchange either, even though she is a subject of discussion.
Righteous and kind? In the world of Gaia perhaps. Here, creatures are essentially selfish, and learning not to be short-sighted about it is on our curriculum. This is a problem with very “new” humans: If not taught strictly, they’ll be cruel, even murderous, without an inkling of a shimmer of understanding this is not how we humans play the game. Most older souls have that lesson down so don’t need as much of a reminder, growing up. Go visit countries with high percentages of younger souls and see the differences.
The problem with this theodicy, of course, is that the fact that we cannot construct a world where creatures are free to choose but never malicious, cannot even conceive of how to construct a world, is poor evidence to argue that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not be able to do just that. One cannot simply posit a deity that is vastly beyond human except when applying human limitations better supports one’s argument.
Of course, such logic may lead one to Leibniz’s theodicy instead; though it may appear to us that there are some obvious ways to construct a better possible world, how are we to say for sure that there aren’t unintended consequences to the changes we would prefer to make that we would see if only we had a superhumanly broad perspective? I can’t say it seems very likely that this is the best of all possible worlds, that all seemingly better ones are either logically inconsistent or have unexpected crippling flaws, but I must concede that as a mere human my knowledge is limited.