This chart makes things much clearer. Arigato

The correct answer is an unlucky sentient manhole cover, that incidentally was thinking “Oh no, not again”.

I’m too busy looking up Biden Inflation at the moment

Ok, just verifying that that fallacy wasn’t the crux of your argument

Are you implying that a negative categorically cannot be proven?

Let’s start with clarifying an element of the question:

Which characteristics define a god? Do these characteristics violate the laws of physics and/or internal logic? If these characteristics do not violate the laws of physics, then what aspects distinguish a god from a mundane or natural entity?

Planet _x

It’s like … mythology or something, and the planet(oid) being anthropomorphized.

I mean, the planet(oid)s are named after gods.

The personification of its classification is probably related to the exclusivity of the title and “bigger is better” mentality. Since every life form has a taxonomy for domain to species, there’s not really an exclusivity to each echelon. I don’t imagine anybody really thinks like this meme below, for example:

Skill issue

I wouldn’t count anything that isn’t at least arguably as long as a movie. Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Day Out and the SpongeBob episode “Gary Takes a Bath” otherwise would count as well. There’s probably an otherwise qualifiable clone-focused episode of The Clone Wars, too.

Wikipedia says All is Lost has only 1 character, but I did find a SPOILER scene that shows Redford by someone else’s arm for only a couple of seconds. I’d figure this is the only scene with anyone else onscreen.

Bo Burnham: Inside?

What the hell did this man do

Me wrist-deep trying to find the King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms (Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu)’s prostate

Officer of the military ≠ officer in the military. Looping back to the point other commenters have made about civilian leadership over the military, the relevant section of the 14th Amendment establishes the existence of civilian offices under the US. The court finding also refers to POTUS as “Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch”. In each hypothetical scenario of the Commander in Chief being categorized as a civilian office or instead being categorized as a military office, it is covered by the critical word “or” in “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…”. Ultimately, the role of Commander in Chief is an “office, civilian or military, under the United States”, and to “have engaged in insurrection” while in this office of the US would disqualify a person from holding this office again (except the court decided otherwise 🙄).