The idea of a God often doesn't add up when we look at the universe. Stars, with their endless energy, power life across countless planets. This abundance suggests that life could thrive without the need for violence or killing.
If a benevolent and omnipotent God created everything, it would make sense for such a deity to design a world where all life could coexist peacefully, drawing from the boundless energy of the stars. However, the reality on Earth is quite different. We see a world driven by competition, predation, and survival of the fittest. Animals kill for food, and humans have a long history of violence and conflict.
This inherent need for destruction contradicts the idea of a benevolent creator who would provide for all living beings without suffering. The existence of endless energy sources like the sun suggests that life could be sustained harmoniously.
Therefore, the harsh realities we witness challenge the concept of a man-made God intended to explain and justify the world. It implies that our understanding of divinity might be flawed or that the true nature of the universe is more complex and less centered around human beliefs.
Living implies sentenced from inception towards point of death. Few suggest progressivism towards points to tempt many to ignore sentence/sense/perception within perceivable origin.
Point implies "end of sentence"...
Hold your breath...can you negate the need to breathe? What if negation implies ones de-nial of position?
What if few suggest a conflict of reason (positive vs negative) to distract one from being able to negate ones position through ignorance?
Zero/cifre/cipher aka arithmetic/arithmos/tell-craft/numerology etc. tempts ONE to ignore that all is ONE in energy.
Sleight of hand: "there can be only one" + "all for one and one for all" + "alone" aka ALL(in)ONE.
Here's a test...if EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" implies one; then what's two? How could one double internal power of external energy?