If God, Why Evil? - A Debate on the Problem of Evil

[@TomZychowski]

Dr. Michael Shermer is brave for taking on these debates, he makes solid points. Dawkins stopped debating the religious as they ignore evidence, it is a pointless debate where one presenter is pointing out facts and the other ignoring them.

[@vacrepair]

Dawkins stopped debating the religious because he ignores logic!

[@farvision]

Not one of Huffling's arguments makes any sense at all.

[@aaronwalderslade]

I have a question for the panel. If you are wearing an armful of bangles can you please remove them when you are sitting in front of a microphone for two hours.

[@leoniejazz7962]

I question the impartiality of the mediator. Thanks you @michaelshermer ! The voice of reason!

[@AndJusticeForMe]

No need to question. His bias is on display for all to see.

[@slhslh9038]

00:58:30 - Huffling - "We don't experience god with our senses. We have to experience god with what we see around us." - I think you will find that is experiencing with a sense! What you mean is 'I see this awesome thing, it seems explainable to me, so I assume it must be god.' Problem is that most things have been explained - you are just unaware of the explanation. And even for the myriad of things where we don't yet have an explanation - you want to use the same old adage 'then it must be god'; an adage that does nothing to further our 'god given curiosity, insight and progress. In fact, when you think about something that diminishes human flourishing (Huffling definition of evil), it's hard to think of anything more evil than the simple idea of 'if we can't provide a rational and scientific answer today, then it it must be god'. Think of the damage that has done to (at least human) flourishing over the last two millennia!

[@nabeelkhan7506]

What you are mentioning is basically the "God of gaps"

[@JosiahFickinger]

Those were Greek and Roman gods though

[@IvanValienteGoogle]

Dr. Shermer, I think you did an excellent job telling the audience the facts of reality. Although you spoke to what it seemed a small, older audience, let's hope that your words will be heard by younger generations that come across your debate. Keep going and don't feel frustrated, the benefits overweight the frustration.

[@AndJusticeForMe]

Love the picture of Ravi in the back. One of their all-stars.

[@johnpetrocelli]

Michael Shermer's response to the question at 1:25:24 and ending at 1:32:31 is priceless. I agree. Not sure if Michael "won" the debate, but this part of the video is a tough issue for believers to wrestle with, and it should no longer be ignored.

[@johnpetrocelli]

The issue is that moral progress preceded new interpretations of the Bible, and not that new interpretations of the Bible led to moral progress. Another take is that the moral progress, as it pertains to things like women’s rights, gay rights, interracial marriage and things like reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions, are not due to new interpretations of the Bible, but rather to the progress made in the physical and social sciences that force us to consider the truth.

[@johnpetrocelli]

@James Hampton No - I'm not saying, nor suggesting, there are new interpretations that align with moral progress. What I mean by moral progress NOT being "due to new interpretations of the Bible" is that no such interpretations, old or new, can explain why we have witnessed considerable moral progress in the last five decades relative to the rest of history, such as civil liberties, civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, animal rights, and the continued expansion of the moral sphere to include all sentient beings.

[@MsJohnnythunder]

Was Michael informed of the topic of the debate? We're not talking about evidence for God... But his relationship to evil and how the latter disproves him...

[@donknoward2832]

Why does this only have < 300 views?

[@slhslh9038]

01:00:00 - Huffling - "God is infinite. We cannot understand infinite, therefore we cannot understand god". Good - so stop arguing for the existence of something that you can have (by your own definition) any evidence or proof for, or even begin to comprehend. Stop pretending you can have any idea what non-existing, immaterial entity might want of us (if anything). Give up referring to books, which (at best) were transcripts of this gods words, written and manipulated over time by humans much less educated and therefore much more fallible than you. Instead, invest your time in solving any real-world material challenge, and do more good, and less evil, in your lifetime, than all the 'gods' have ever done in their 'infinite' wisdom. If your god really does exist,he/she/it will probably appreciate you more for that than spouting gibberish like this.

[@TheLustyDoll]

The whole conversation went off topic onto the topic of whether or not God exists BUT the entire debate was supposed to be about IF GOD (ALREADY ASSUMING HE EXISTS, THEN WHY EVIL?) On which point DR. Michael Shermer had the far more rational points. But the conversation shifted away from that and devolved into whether he exists or not. Dr. Brian Huffling had very weak points throughout on the actual problem of evil. The question was supposed to be WHY evil IF the traditional idea of God exists as a being? Not "does God exist or not" The fact is that he is obviously not "all benevolent" in the fully literal sense IF someone agrees he exists in the first place. That's pretty obvious.

[@AStoicMaster]

Things get rather muddled when the dialectic shifts from internal to external critiques without any clarification.

[@patriklindholm7576]

A more proper question would be: if evil, why propone a god to fix it?

[@davidgamble4086]

Many atheists agree that one cannot have a solid moral foundation without some sort of metaphysical existence. Proper Christianity is inherently sociological, thus living out the worldview of Christianity, the ding an sich (the very thing itself) does indeed address moral evil. That is nothing to say of when Christians fail to do so. If you have a well-rounded and compelling model for moral truth that is non-theistic, I'm interested because I have yet to hear one. The closest that falls short in many ways is Wielenberg.

[@Wingedmagician]

Thanks for doing this with Shermer

[@TheLustyDoll]

The amputee point is a huge one. If God even grew back 1 single limb of an amputee who was lovingly devoted to him in an actual documented case, it would have MASSIVE implications and so many people would at the very least believe God exists and is CAPABLE of actually growing limbs back. But he has not done even that yet. It is already well known that internal issues can be healed with or without prayer, so healing cancer etc. DOES NOT even require a God or prayer to work and it has already been shown that prayer makes little to no difference on such healing happening anyway. Positive thinking is physically good for the health and can help ANYONE heal, whether a theist or not. Growing a limb back without the use of future technology to do so; would clearly require a force beyond this world (at the current level of technology)That WOULD be an actual miracle in the real sense of the word and would at least start things rolling in more people believing he exists at least. AT LEAST THAT MUCH. I am a Dynamic Theist saying this by the way and even I am very disappointed with the majority of other theistic viewpoints' arguments regarding this amputee issue. The traditional concept of God that most folks worship is obviously very fond of remaining hidden and invisible to most people most of the time and he is not all that interested in actually proving his existence. If he were at all interested in that he would heal AT LEAST 1 AMPUTEE in a solidly documented case in a very obvious way. THEN there would be some actual rational ground for people to at least believe in him existing. And even then, worshiping him or people wanting to would still be a separate matter.

[@slhslh9038]

01:08 - Huffling - "Is the lack of response to prayer, proof to you (Shermer) of gods non-existence". Shermer waffles a bit here, but the point is you tell your follower that 'god is out there listening and ready to respond to your prayers'. You say this without any supporting evidence (in fact in direct contradiction to evidence). Why? Why do you say this? Why don't you tell your followers 'God is out there, but he/she/it doesn't listen to your prayers, or if he/she/it does listen, then it will ignore them and treat you in the same way as it treats an atheist, Muslim or Buddhist'? Shermer is simply saying - 'You make a claim that your got is out there, listening and supporting. Where is your evidence because we (and you) cannot find it. This being the case - why are you making the claim?"

[@adelalax3553]

DR. BRIAN HUFFLING you need the Holy Spirit instead of trying to please men!

[@nathanielolson]

Excellent debate! It seems that Brian Huffling is sympathetic to the Thomistic understanding of God. Excellent!

[@danielshultz2359]

Trying to make the Christian God and the entire Bible all fit together while maintaining some level of intellectual honesty usually results in these kinds of nuanced, convoluted answers that are way beyond what the average Christian could answer. Even Huffling's argument asserted that God is good regardless of his actions and cannot be measured for "philosophical reasons", but had to just say "I don't know" when asked why God only answers some prayers. This is what happens when you start with the "knowledge" that your conclusion about God is true and work backward from that conclusion to fill out the argument. It's not truth-seeking because the truth is already decided, it's just trying to figure out how to make that truth work. A very simple answer that makes sense of everything very neatly is that God does not exist.

[@MrReform]

I am so happy that for once experience a religious debater who debates and is not offended or turns into a protective and aggressive mood. Thanks Dr Huffling!

[@slhslh9038]

The Huffling 'argument': 1. Evil is something that diminishes flourishing / increases well-being, and 'Good' is the opposite. 2. God is unequivocally 'good', but god does things that diminish human flourishing - why is that not 'evil'. 3. God does not do evil things, he/it/she simply has a different moral standard than humans, and we cannot hold god as evil for doing the same things we would execute (in the use anyway) another human for.

[@Business21-k6u]

What caused Shermer to not believe anymore he has anger inside his heart .

[@slhslh9038]

00:47 - Huffling - "You cannot measure an immaterial thing with some form of measurement - doesn't logically follow" - erm - yes - it does logically follow. If something is immaterial, then it does not exist in anyway to be measured. We know science has postulated the existence of what could have been considered at the time 'immaterial' things that we had no way of measuring (various sub-atomic particle over the years), yet we have gone on to find a way to measure those things (and thus - they became material). Here it is being asserted that something exists, that can never ever be measured; in otherwords - it can have no impact on our material world (otherwise we could potentially detect it).It never shows up in the natural world (otherwise there would be some probability we would one day measure it), and so it has zero impact on anything we do or experience. If so - there is no point in discussing the thing in question - it is like Shermer says - Sagans Dragon.

[@Chopbreaka]

I'm amazed at the amount of tap dancing huffing performs . Lol too funny

[@craiggrocott7559]

I prefer Dawkins approach, Science is right, God is not real, rather than these long drawn out nuanced debates.

[@chansetwo]

As long as there are Christians like the woman at 1:45, there will be Christianity. She didn't seem to hear a single word said by Dr. Shermer.

[@mindofmayhem.]

If God, Why Evil? Because God is evil. Duh!!!!!!

[@adelalax3553]

the standard for 'God doesn't exist is so basic it's pitiful

[@SinAsTheTic]

Huffling has advanced degrees in philosophy yet he treats science and philosophy as two separate areas of knowledge. A simple search of "philosophy of" will show his misunderstanding. It's not surprising that his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion is from SES. SES don't know the meaning of philosophy but they offer it to legitimize their existence...another case of religion trying to keep up with evolution

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Great debate. The moderator was excellent.

[@slhslh9038]

00:45 - Shermer - Definition of good - "Flourishing of all sentient beings" is OK, but is a plant 'sentient'? Personally, I would go with 'living beings'.

[@winstonsmiththx1138]

Well I certainly see the benefits of eating way less meat then at least Americans consume I don't think everyone wants to be a vegan which is what your worldview would force us all to be. In fact I don't know what humans would eat under your worldview I'm not saying schirmer's definition is perfect but I don't think I want your change to his definition

[@maxwelldillon4805]

Why should we worry about the flourishing of non-sentient life?

[@manufactured_reality]

I'm an agnostic and though I found Dr. Huffling's arguments wholly uncompelling, it makes me very happy to see two adults disagreeing in good faith, something we don't see very much in these polarizing times.

[@BobFrTube]

I've long been troubled by the use of the words "good" and "evil" as if they are intrinsic properties rather than operational terms that depend upon the context and a given action can be both at the same time when viewed through multiple lenses. Given the ambiguity what does it even mean to ask about the role of a singular God?

[@drlegendre]

God clearly said that he created the evil. Next question?

[@markomarko1591]

This is so simple. Atheists have to admit that there is a god, theists have to admit that god is not a good guy. Problem solved!

[@jwbboy]

Why does God allow for evil? I don't understand why there wasn't a direct and biblical response to this, God tells us why. To show His glory. 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'" 26 "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" (Romans 9:22-26, ESV) Don't like that answer? Too bad, you didn't create the world nor do you uphold it by the power of your word. In other words, God is God and you're not. You answer to Him, not the other way around. 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: 2 "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements-surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 "Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, 9 when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, 10 and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, 11 and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'? (Job 38:1-11, ESV) And God allows bad things to happen to show who He is in bringing certain things to pass. 1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (John 9:1-5, ESV) It's not that there's no answer, it's that people lost in their sin won't accept the answer because they hate the God that is. The God that they know and continue to rebel against. Repent of your sin, turn to Christ while you still have time. Until then, you're simply a fool who can not see. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. (Psalm 14:1, ESV) 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'"You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive." 15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' (Matthew 13:13-15, ESV)

[@wisdomdesignedlife]

The theist is too kind and too philosophical. He lets the atheist go from one topic to another.

[@NessaNZ]

Nice big pic of Ravi..

[@ferniegutierrez5605]

Yeah this was before the scandal was made known to the public.

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

I came across this most interesting and enlightening discourse on the subject of evil in this present dispensation of Grace, by a brother of Christ who has fallen asleep many years ago, yet "Though dead, yet speaketh" now awaiting the resurrection of the just and the unjust. "The fact of evil is staggering, but it is a fact and must have a rational meaning, seeing the universe, as the deepest thinkers all acknowledge, is conducted on the principle of reason. We are on the track of its discovery when we touch this phrase "freewill" "his own voluntary will", Apart from the phrase, the thing exists. There is in man the power of deciding how he shall act. His liberty of decision is governed by circumstances, truly: (he cannot stay in a sinking ship unless he choose to drown). Still, he has the power of adjusting himself to circumstances. He can do or not do. He can choose or refuse. He is under no constraint. The reasons before his mind may constrain his choice: but his choice is his choice because of the reasons and not because of any compulsion brought to bear. When the outbreak of fire in the house makes him run into the street, his running into the street is his own act. Nobody forces him. He is a free agent. This is the primary fact in the case which sophistry cannot alter, though it may raise a fog before the eyes of the sophisticated. The common-sense of universal mankind, including our friends the sophists, recognizes the fact in all the practical relations of life. Now, it will be found that this fact (so distinctly recognized by the law of Moses) gives the clue to the mighty problem of evil. To see how, we must take the point of view of the Creator and not the created. We must consider what are the aims of God in the development of the earth and its inhabitants. It must be evident that the feelings of man can afford no clue. Man's feelings are limited to his own little self, and generated by the infinitesimal horizon of his individual view. Yet it is down here where the floundering's take place. Ascending to the divine point of view, we get away from the floundering's. We have it revealed that God has made man "for his (God's) own pleasure", That God should have pleasure astounds our philosophic friend. We may "leave him alone" The reverse state of things would be far more astounding. Where has man got what little capacity for pleasure he possesses? David's enquiry, "He that hath formed the eye, shall he not see?" is quite to the point. Now, how and in what can man give God pleasure? Not by bodily strength, as it is written, God" delighteth not in the strength of a horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man", It is possible for us to conceive that mere mechanical energy would not afford pleasure to God: it does not afford pleasure to man, who is made in His image: why should it to God? What does afford Him pleasure? "The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy." "Will the Lord be pleased with ten thousands of rams? .... To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." "The Lord taketh pleasure in the righteous." "To this man will I look . . . that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word." "My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The secret of the Lord's pleasure, as expressed in these cases, lies in the thing meant by the Mosaic phrase: "his own voluntary will", "Obedience", free and uncompelled--love and worship constrained only by discernment of what is "due" on the part of created intelligent beings, is the thing in which He delights. Does not reason admire this? We are in His image. What higher enjoyment is possible to man than the spontaneous appreciation of those who are enlightened? Should we enjoy the deferential genuflexions of wax figures worked by machinery? Could we find pleasure even in the subservience of human beings who were mesmerized into it by animal magnetism or coerced into it by authority? In these considerations, we get a glimpse of the reason why God's highest pleasure should be derivable from the free worship of independent intelligence. To make it acceptable, He has to bestow the independence. And here is where the door has been opened for evil, and where have come in the "long ages of delay" that defer but cannot prevent the final triumph. The power to act independently with which it was necessary we should be endowed, brings along with it the power to act wrongly, the power to act disobediently, and, therefore, the power to bring about that prevalence of evil which God appoints as the corollary of sin. This power has been so used. It is a matter of history. It is no matter of theory that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now", We can take any country--any nation, any man to witness that man is subject to vanity everywhere--that the healthiest and wealthiest are no exception, though they have certain momentary mitigations. The fact of the matter is unquestionable. The history of the matter may be varied by different imaginations, but the truth of the matter is one. Unbelievers guess: the Bible reveals. The Bible being true, we listen, "by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin" By another, both will depart out of the world. The thing is in process, "Christ the first fruits: afterward they that are Christ's at his coming". The process is slow because the result requires time--the voluntary subordination of human wills to God (in the midst of and in spite of the evil) by means of His testimony acting upon the understanding. The result finally reached in the redemption of an obedient multitude will obliterate and justify the evil through which it will have been attained. At last, the song will be true-- In Christ the tribes of Adam boast More blessings than their father lost: " AMEN!

[@patriklindholm7576]

You offered absolutely nothing in your embarrassing attempt at a preaching rant. Keeping up revealing this line of non sequitur thinking but proves the point of your conceived opposition. Well done.

[@noahjwhite]

The problem of pain and suffering doesn't really have a good Christian answer. Read C. S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain" for a much better Christian argument.

[@nathanielolson]

33:56 I too accept Apophatic Theology.

[@brianhenson3129]

Dr. Huffling actually answered the questions and built a strong case for his position while Dr. Shermer dodged the questions and could not ground his position at all. I'm not sure that Dr. Shermer understood Dr. Huffling's answers. Dr. Huffling definitely came out on top in this debate.

[@kimyunmi452]

52:39 francis galton, not charles galton 😊

[@031767sc]

huffing talking in circles

[@snowrider4495]

the god worshipper sounds like a dungeon and dragons worshipper except dungeon and dragons is a much better fictional story!

[@JnWayn]

Does the Theist know that he's lying?

[@williamfitzpatrick6369]

Evil is what we think is evil just like funny is what we think is funny.

[@inklingsofgod]

If evil is only defined by what we think is evil then hurting little children is not evil and yes I know some might call this is a two edged sword but it cannot be a two-edged sword if evil does not exist. And by extrapolation the flourishing of sentient life cannot be deemed good or evil and thus Shermer States the obvious fallacy.

[@williamfitzpatrick6369]

@@inklingsofgod : 99.9% of us think hurting little children is evil so by consensus, it is evil.. There is a major fault in your logic.

[@adelalax3553]

an example of perfection: Jesus Christ

[@MrBBOTP]

Shermer sharp again, nonsense or lies is all they got. Its sad

[@kennym3492]

Answer god questions in debate. Check it out :)

[@bozk488]

God is the product of the imagination.

[@howtodoit4204]

Ok what’s the product of the design of life and the fine tuning of the universe?

[@outs78]

1:23:50 typical fool wearing extra thick god glasses.

[@inklingsofgod]

So it is not my logic that is faulty your own statement doesn't even make sense you decide what evil is and by what criteria do you make that statement in a materialistic World there is no such thing as evil there is either we are Stardust or we aren't Stardust and if we are Stardust it doesn't matter nothing matters life is meaningless your worldview not mine so my Logix not faulty yours is because you're not following your own worldview if your material list then nothing matters try to be logically consistent yourself you're not what you are doing is you are borrowing from a theistic worldview hurting little children is wrong and 99% of you believe it is wrong because God has written that in your heart you are appealing to a theistic worldview where people have intrinsic value not too materialistic view where we are nothing but Stardust by your logic ninety-nine percent of people who supported the Nazi party then we're right appealing to the populace as what you just did

[@winstonsmiththx1138]

Are you for real? Cuz if you're not doing a bit you're truly an idiot

[@adelalax3553]

that is the problem of humanity today; it has replace God with science; trusting each others word don't matter how ridiculous. God gives us moral standard and rules to live by, but some rejected even deny His existence because they don't want their Morality and specially God"s rules to disturb/remorse their sinful behavior being an atheist is not a matter of not believing in God, is matter of I don't want to feel remorse about sin or feel like I have to pat for my crimes.>>. As simple as that! I pray "you" come to the truth real soon

[@adelalax3553]

to my atheist friends; how do you know the wind exist? {cause you can feel it and hear it, right?} Where does it come from? Where does it go? That my friend is like God to us! You can't see Him, don't know where He comes from or goes, but you can feel Him and hear

[@JnWayn]

We can see what the wind do to trees. We can create it with a fan. We can test it's effects when present and absent. Gods have 0 independent evidence. You could say all the things you said about magic pixie even though they don't exist, just like gods

[@adelalax3553]

@@JnWayn do you have kids? Who makes the them?

[@JnWayn]

@@adelalax3553 why would they be my kids if somebody else made them? What is your argument for the existence of gods? No question you ask me whether I'm able to answer it or not, is evidence for beings that are totally absent from reality

[@adelalax3553]

@@JnWayn that is not what I asked🤔

[@JnWayn]

@@adelalax3553 yes I have a kid. Going by your turn off phase, his mother and I made him

[@adelalax3553]

if God doesn't exist, how do you explain Israel? How do you explain all the kingdoms, that destroy Israel so many times. With history facts from non_biblical writing like the steely from Egypt British museum in London Pergamon museum in Berlin arch of Titus in Rome. All accounts for the destruction of Israel, and yet God has persevere them as He said in the Bible Isaiah 43:1-13 New International Version Israel’s Only Savior 43 But now, this is what the Lord says- he who created you, Jacob, he who formed you, Israel: “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine. 2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze. 3 For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush[a] and Seba in your stead. 4 Since you are precious and honored in my sight, and because I love you, I will give people in exchange for you, nations in exchange for your life. 5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. 6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth- 7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” 8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf. 9 All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of their gods foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, “It is true.” 10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior. 12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed- I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “that I am God. 13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?”

[@adelalax3553]

Psalm 14 1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God.

[@ericryant8852]

Why does he need to look down to see? Doesn't he already suppose to know?