Let's begin with some context. I was reading Griffiths's introduction to electrodynamics.
This makes sense given all the content one can find online in order to understand visually the divergence.
for example: https://youtu.be/rB83DpBJQsE or https://en.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/multivariable-derivatives/divergence-and-curl-articles/a/intuition-for-divergence-formula
So the problem arises when one tries to understand conceptually (or visually) the fact that $$ \nabla\cdot\frac{\hat{r}}{r^2} = 0, \qquad r\neq 0. $$ I've done the calculation where:
$$\nabla \cdot \frac{\hat{r}}{r^2}=\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2\frac{1}{r^2})=\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(1)=0.$$
That's fine but I find it impossible to understand it visually. Take for example this picture.
Having in mind the intuitive explanation of the divergence, like the one showed in the links, is easy to see that the flow through a small region in the image above, not containing the origin, is not equal to zero. Furthermore, it is obvious that the divergence is not zero because it doesn't look anything like the next image whose divergence is zero.
(In the image above the vector field isn't changing in space.)
Finally, I know that using the divergence theorem one can show mathematically that: $$\int \nabla\cdot\vec{r}/r^3 d\tau=\int \frac{\vec{r}}{r^3}\cdot d\vec{a} .$$ And if we consider the surface of a sphere of any radius, centered at the origin, one can show that $$\int \frac{\vec{r}}{r^3}\cdot d\vec{a}=4\pi.$$
Again, that's okay but doesn't help me to understand visually why $$ \nabla\cdot\frac{\vec{r}}{r^3} = 0~? $$