Coming (inception towards death) to be (life) implies as partial (free will of choice) within absolute (dominance of balance).
Free can only exist within dom aka free-dom...ignoring ones choice for chosen ones suggestion permits another to dominate one.
existence is an act
a) EX implies expression; hence expressed reaction (life) within impressing action (inception towards death).
b) Energy implies internal/inherent power, hence action (motion) generating internal/inherent power (momentum) for reactions (matter).
c) One cannot act (balance); only react (choice)...
The only way to deal
a) TO aka towards aka inception towards death implies only way for life.
b) THE aka suggested the-ism implies that one took (consent) a deal (suggestion) from another, while ignoring perceivable DEAL, verb - "to divide; to part; to separate" aka to be partial (perception) within whole (perceivable).
c) Only implies ONE aka energy (internal/inherent power) aka all for one, and one for all aka there can be only one aka ALL(in)ONE aka alone aka sole/soul aka SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; unbroken".
a) The bet was made...not (Latin nihilo; nothing) aka suggested nihil-ism and ones consent to de-nial perceivable (everything) for suggested (nothing).
b) If it's "only"; then why do you divide it into winning vs losing?
The trick...whatever others suggest tempts one to want or not want aka agree or disagree aka believe or disbelief aka confirm or deny etc. Choosing either side tempts one into a conflict of reason (want versus not want; agree vs disagree etc.); while permitting those making the suggestions the control over both sides.
Choosing to want or not want suggested tempts one to ignore being want (life) within need (inception towards death) of perceivable. There's no conflict within perceivable, only underneath the spell of suggestion.
From a different perspective...choice can only exist within balance (need/want); choosing want over need imbalances (want vs not want) choice.
The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.
Albert Camus
Coming (inception towards death) to be (life) implies as partial (free will of choice) within absolute (dominance of balance).
Free can only exist within dom aka free-dom...ignoring ones choice for chosen ones suggestion permits another to dominate one.
a) EX implies expression; hence expressed reaction (life) within impressing action (inception towards death).
b) Energy implies internal/inherent power, hence action (motion) generating internal/inherent power (momentum) for reactions (matter).
c) One cannot act (balance); only react (choice)...
a) TO aka towards aka inception towards death implies only way for life.
b) THE aka suggested the-ism implies that one took (consent) a deal (suggestion) from another, while ignoring perceivable DEAL, verb - "to divide; to part; to separate" aka to be partial (perception) within whole (perceivable).
c) Only implies ONE aka energy (internal/inherent power) aka all for one, and one for all aka there can be only one aka ALL(in)ONE aka alone aka sole/soul aka SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; unbroken".
Buddhists don’t believe in god
a) The bet was made...not (Latin nihilo; nothing) aka suggested nihil-ism and ones consent to de-nial perceivable (everything) for suggested (nothing).
b) If it's "only"; then why do you divide it into winning vs losing?
The trick...whatever others suggest tempts one to want or not want aka agree or disagree aka believe or disbelief aka confirm or deny etc. Choosing either side tempts one into a conflict of reason (want versus not want; agree vs disagree etc.); while permitting those making the suggestions the control over both sides.
Choosing to want or not want suggested tempts one to ignore being want (life) within need (inception towards death) of perceivable. There's no conflict within perceivable, only underneath the spell of suggestion.
From a different perspective...choice can only exist within balance (need/want); choosing want over need imbalances (want vs not want) choice.