Podcasts about Omniscience

La dernière fois que je me suis fait une bonne bouffe, une question a popé dans ma tête : les aliments, ils viennent d'où ? D'où arrivent les tomates, patates, échalotes, haricots, prunes et pêches qu'on mange, est-ce que tout ça poussait miraculeusement en Europe dès la Préhistoire ? Eh bien sans surprise, c'est non ! En fait, beaucoup de fruits et de légumes ont leur propre histoire et leur propre géographie ! Alors on se lance au cœur de la marmite pour enquêter sur leurs origines, toutes passionnantes !Bonne écoute !

Sunday June 7, 2026 – By Bob Cote Continuing the series of ‘Minor Profits' Zechariah 1:7–17

How do we hold on to joy when life feels overwhelming?In today's episode, Richelle Alessi opens her heart about facing one of her family's hardest seasons and guides us through James 1:2-4, a powerful reminder to find perseverance and purpose in our trials. Together, we'll explore what it means to trust God's sovereignty, even when joy seems so far away, and how worship and surrender can nurture faith that endures the fire.Let's come together as a community for this honest and uplifting devotional, joining in prayer and devotion as we seek renewed strength and peace in every season.Richelle Alessi mentioned the Metro Life Worship song "All Joy", click here listen to it!Tap HERE to send us a text! BECOME A FOUNDING "MY MORNING DEVOTIONAL" MEMBERIf you enjoy your 5 minute daily dose of heaven, we would appreciate your support, and we have a fun way for you to partner with the MMD community! We've launched our "Buy Me a Coffee" membership where you can buy us a latte, OR become a founding member and get monthly bonus video episodes! To donate, go to mymorningdevo.co/join! Support the showNEW VIDEO EPISODES! You can watch our new video episodes on YouTube! Watch Our Video DevotionalsNEW TO MY MORNING DEVOTIONAL? We're so glad you're here! We're the Alessis, a ministry family working together in a church in Miami, FL, and we're so blessed to partner with the My Morning Devotional community and continue the great work done by the show's creator and our friend, Alison Delamota.We pray our personal reflections and devotions will empower you to grow your faith in God, and that you'll join us every morning in prayer! HELP US GROW THE MMD COMMUNITYSubscribe to the show on this appShare this with a friendJoin our newsletter Follow Us on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠Facebook⁠⁠Leave a reviewSupport Our Friends and FamilyConnect with the original host of MMD  Alison DelamotaFollow our family's podcast The Family Business with The Alessis

Omniscience is the attribute of God that says He knows everything. That is both assuring and frightening, for there are some things we have done that we hope God remembers, and other things we hope He forgets!  Join me for today's Daily Word & Prayer to learn more.Scripture Used in Today's MessageHebrews 6:10, 8:12, 10:17To find Tom on Instagram, Facebook, TiKTok, and elsewhere, go to linktr.ee/tomthepreache

In Clint's latest installment of his series on God's attributes, he looks at God's knowledge of all things, and the implications this has for our walk with him.

Wednesday evening message from the pulpit of Shawano Baptist Church

Pastor Mark Hernandez on God's Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence.If you have missed any of our Luke sermon series or our God Is series catch up with  our brand new podcast website! Link below

- Contact -"Evil destroys even itself."  Aristotle. " Experience is not what happens to you; it is what you do with what happens to you."Aldous HuxleyThe word evil is live, and devil is lived spelled backward.  Lies are backward forms of thought imagining false is true or truth is false.  Whenever we choose to think this way inner conflict, emotional turmoil, and mental anguish indicate we know something is wrong and is an admission we know better.  Obsessive thoughts are highly reactive and manufacture an insane split personality we call ego to assign blame. Splitting atoms causes a chain reaction by splitting adjacent atoms just as reactive behaviors trigger reactivity in our nuclear family of humankind. When nuclear reactors lose control of the release of atomic energy meltdowns occur.  When our struggle to maintain our seeming self as a split personality is literaly out of control emotional and nervous breakdowns, called meltdowns, oftenresult from the pent-up pressure of anxiety and stress stored in our bodies. Wrong thoughts are not a problem until they are believed in as right.  Belief, like any lie, is an opinion imagined to be true. Reality and Truth do not require, ask for, or demand belief or to be thought of at all to Be exactly as They Are. That which does not change is not changed by thinking.  All forms of social ills, anti-social behaviors, and defective actions follow this broken line of irrational thinking.  Self-righteous indignation is never right as its basis is an impossible fight to turn thinking into reality, while it is imagined. This insanity has led to suppressing, oppressing, and killing people who think differently than their aggressor.  This form of justified fighting is happening today - simply because the root of this thinking has not been talked about openly and accurately to dissolve the reactive impulsive rather than justify resolutions that lead to what can seem like different problems while this fractured state of defective thinking is the same. Fantasy as reality is insanity.  We are not afraid of dying we are afraid to have Life's light shine on our dark shadows and reveal the self we think we are is smoke and mirrors, since it is a lie, not our reality. We Know We Know. We Are Aware We Are Aware. We Are as We Are. Reality is unlimited and never changes. The idea that how and what we think creates reality suggests otherwise. Acting on backward thoughts leads to behaviors that are out of order reflecting a reversal of our natural fortune that are accurately called disorders. Anxious, nervous and systemic disorders reflect this impossible attempt to reverse Nature's Law and Order and our Universe's Essence. Dis-ease is the lack of ease created and maintained by such twisted mental acrobatics. Stress and Anxiety inhibit healing and compound and degrade health.  Mentality is a bodily function.  Mental disease is a physcial ailment. For as long as it is misdiagnosed - any cure or treatment will perpetuate its contagion.  Principles affirm Our Indivisible nature. Sharing Principles confirms our natural indivisibility. Inspiration is natural while desperation, depression, degradation and acting oblivious to what is obvious is an unnatural choice to oppose reality which is impossible to accomplish though we are free to try.   Ignoring what is happening, acting as though it shouldn't be or isn't happening, produces the unintelligible gibberish of ignorance - not reality. 

- Contact -MOD concepts have no shelf-life or expiration date.  Since our focus is principled and always happening now - each episode will always reflect the moving fluid nature of current events. Sobriety provides a level of existing clarity previously denied. Looking honestly at mental problems is difficult while obsessed with acting out of order, against any favorable interests, by opposing instinct's nature that naturally guides us to survive and thrive.Emotional sobriety is sane living. Compulsive behaviors never favor our interests. A good example is imagining addiction is an escape into safety by denying actual Reality.  Sick thoughts imagine stellar results while fertilizing the degradation and reckless abandon of pitiful consequences.  We Know We Know. We Are Aware We Are Aware. We Are as We Are. Reality is unlimited and never changes. The idea that how and what we think creates reality suggests otherwise. Acting on backward thoughts leads to behaviors that are out of order reflecting a reversal of our natural fortune that are accurately called disorders. Anxious, nervous and systemic disorders reflect this impossible attempt to reverse Nature's Law and Order and our Universe's Essence. Dis-ease is the lack of ease created and maintained by such twisted mental acrobatics. Stress and Anxiety inhibit healing and compound and degrade health.  Mentality is a bodily function.  Mental disease is a physcial ailment. For as long as it is misdiagnosed - any cure or treatment will perpetuate its contagion.  Principles affirm Our Indivisible nature. Sharing Principles confirms our natural indivisibility. Inspiration is natural while desperation, depression, degradation and acting oblivious to what is obvious is an unnatural choice to oppose reality which is impossible to accomplish though we are free to try.   Ignoring what is happening, acting as though it shouldn't be or isn't happening, produces the unintelligible gibberish of ignorance - not reality. 

Opening Prayer and Why We’re in Leviticus on Easter Lord God, thank you for this morning. Thank you for an opportunity to celebrate your resurrection. Lord, it is such a sweet truth that so often throughout our lives we forget or put on the back burner. I’m grateful that we live in a society where, even though most people do it wrong, they at least set aside a day to remember that you have risen. As we come to your Word this morning, as we open up the book of Leviticus, help us remember and be in awe of what it means to be in your presence and of how significant an act it was for you to go to the cross. In your name, amen. Well, he is risen. All right. This is not a church that does that very well, so I figured we’d try. This morning I’m doing one of our NGM lessons. It covers five lessons the kids are going over over the next several weeks, because we don’t have NGM today and we don’t have NGM on the 25-year anniversary service. So this is our Leviticus overview. The last time we touched the kids’ curriculum, we were in Exodus back in February. I don’t expect anyone to remember it, so let me lay the groundwork for what we’re talking about today. In Exodus, God’s presence returned to his people, but there was still a significant distance. So God gives them sacrifices, priests, the Day of Atonement, and then says, “Now live like people who belong to me.” That is the arc of what we’re going to be talking about today. The main point of our story this morning is that God built an entire system to teach his people that earning their way into his presence is impossible. However, we sit on this side of Calvary, so we must remind ourselves daily of this distance that the cross had to cross. It happens to be Easter. It wasn’t planned this way, but as I reviewed what I was supposed to teach, I thought, man, this is a perfect preview to Resurrection Sunday. From Sinai to Separation Let’s open up our Bibles, and we’re actually going to start in the book of Exodus. When we read together, we’ll be reading in Exodus 33. But let me give you some background. In our February NGM lesson, we walked through three chapters in Exodus. God brought Israel to the base of Mount Sinai. He had carried them out of Egypt, parted the Red Sea, fed them manna, and when they arrived at the mountain, he spoke to the entire nation. God himself, out of the fire and the smoke and a shaking mountain, directly spoke to his people, giving them the Ten Commandments with his own voice. They were terrified. They begged God to stop talking. They told Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen, but don’t let God speak to us or we’ll die.” So Moses stepped in as a go-between. He went up into the thick darkness where God was, and the people stayed at the base of the mountain. This was the first time in the story where the need for a mediator was obvious. Then God gave Moses seven chapters of a construction plan for a tent: measurements, materials, furniture, fabrics, detail that feels endless in a reading plan. And he did it because he wanted to live with them. The people had just begged God to stop talking to them, and his response was, “No. Make me a tent. Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.” The tabernacle was his answer to the distance that sin had created. He is both holy enough to kill anyone who touches that mountain and willing to live in a tent in the middle of their camp. That’s the tension the gospel shows us. While Moses was up on that mountain receiving those plans, Israel was at the base making a golden calf. Aaron, the guy who was the voice for Moses, who had walked through the Red Sea on dry ground, asked for every piece of gold and melted it down and said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you from the land of Egypt.” He assigned the credit for what Yahweh had done to a piece of metal that had barely even existed in that form. Then he put God’s name on it: “Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh.” So he made this graven image and then named it God. This wasn’t just rejecting God. It was redefining him. God told Moses he was ready to destroy them. He said, “Let’s start over.” Moses argued with God, not on the basis of Israel’s character, but on God’s. He appealed to God’s ownership of the people, God’s glory, God’s promises to Abraham. So God relented, but 3,000 men still died on that day. The sons of Levi went through the camp with swords. These were everybody’s friends and brothers, and Israel felt the weight that their sin had caused. Then Moses went back up to God and said, “If you will forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out from your book which you have written.” Moses said, “Take me instead.” And God said, “No.” He said, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot him out of my book.” Moses couldn’t ransom them. He could not be the mediator. He could not be the true payment for their guilt. That’s where we ended two months ago. We ended at Exodus 32. We knew that God is just, because God killed 3,000 men for their sin. And we knew that God is merciful, because he carried forward a people that didn’t deserve to be carried. After the golden calf, God tells Moses he’ll still give Israel the land. He’ll still send an angel to drive out their enemies. But he says this in Exodus 33:3: “Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey, for I will not go up in your midst because you are a stiff-necked people, lest I consume you on the way.” They still get what they were promised. They’re going up to the land. But they don’t get the most important part: God. And the text is very clear about the reason. God didn’t withdraw his presence as punishment. He did it to protect them: “lest I consume you on the way.” His holiness is so pure that his presence among a stiff-necked people would destroy them. That word stiff-necked is an agricultural term. An ox that stiffens its neck against the yoke refuses to be led. You can pull all you want; you’re not moving that ox. He’s stiff-necked. He won’t be led. That is what God was calling Israel: a people that would not be led. He speaks to them and they build a calf. He commands and they do what is right in their own eyes. The text doesn’t hold Israel up as an example of repentance. They mourn when they hear this news. They strip off their jewelry as a sign of grief. But this is the same people who will grumble for 40 years in the wilderness. They didn’t really understand what they did. They just didn’t like the punishment. God didn’t just refuse to dwell in their midst. He physically separated himself from them. Moses takes the tent of meeting and pitches it outside the camp. Exodus 33:7 says he put it a good distance from the camp. So if you want to seek Yahweh, he’s not in your midst anymore. You have to leave the camp. You have to go a good distance. You have to see a physical picture of the reality that God is not existing among you anymore, because God’s glory and human sin cannot coexist. Then Moses goes into that tent and prays. He doesn’t point to anything in Israel. He reaches for God’s own character. Moses says, “You have said, ‘I have known you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.'” His intercession rests on God’s initiative, not Israel’s improvement. That word favor is the same Hebrew word that shows up throughout the Old Testament for grace. It’s unmerited. It’s already in motion before Moses opened his mouth. This is the picture of New Testament grace. Paul says in Ephesians, “By grace you have been saved through faith, not of yourselves. It’s a gift from God.” The pattern is the same with Moses. God moved first. The entire sacrificial system in Leviticus exists because God chose to be gracious. Israel didn’t design it. God did. So when we read Leviticus, we should read it thinking, this is a gracious gift from our Lord. Every word in this book is a way God made so that he could be among his people. The next morning Moses climbed Sinai alone, and God descended in the cloud and stood there with him, and he called upon the name of Yahweh. In Exodus 34:6–7, God speaks about himself: “Then Yahweh passed by in front of him, Moses. And Yahweh called out, ‘Yahweh, Yahweh, God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness and truth, who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin. Yet he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.'” In these verses, God is defining himself. He calls himself compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin—three different words for sin, and God forgives it all. Then, in the same breath, God says he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. He forgives sin and he punishes sin. If you don’t feel the tension in that sentence, you’re not paying close enough attention. How does a God who abounds in lovingkindness and will by no means leave the guilty unpunished deal with a stiff-necked people that he’s chosen to love? This isn’t resolved in Exodus. Frankly, it’s not resolved in Leviticus. Every sacrifice, every priest, every Day of Atonement is God saying, “I’m holding both of these truths at once, and I’m giving you a system to live under while you wait for the real answer.” The Question Leviticus Exists to Answer After Moses’s intercession, after God proclaims his name on the mountain, and after the tabernacle is finally completed, the people built it exactly as God commanded. So God keeps his promise. Turn a couple of pages to Exodus 40. “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle, and Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had dwelt on it, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle.” God is near. God came back. God chose to dwell in the middle of his people. And even Moses—the man who just saw God’s back on the mountain, the man who has spoken to God face to face—can’t even walk in. The glory fills the place so completely that no human can enter. That’s the question Leviticus exists to answer. The same God who told Moses, “No man can see me and live,” is now dwelling in the center of a camp full of sinful people. How can they survive? How can anyone get near him? The answer isn’t something the Israelites figured out on their own. God himself built a system. He designed every sacrifice. He appointed every priest. He established every ritual because the gap between his holiness and their sin was too wide for them to cross. So he said, “Let me build a bridge.” That’s the story that leads us to the book of Leviticus. That’s where we stand when we open it and ask, “Why all of these rules?” The next lessons in the curriculum for the kids go through that answer. Over the next couple of months, they’re going through Leviticus, and this is an opportunity for us to show them how important this book is for every Christian. God’s glory fills the tabernacle. He’s now in the middle of his people. The first thing he does from that tabernacle is speak, and he gives Moses instructions for the sacrifices. In these, God establishes the cost of being near him. The Cost of Nearness: Blood, Atonement, and the Offerings Leviticus gives us five different types of offering: the sin offering and the guilt offering, which dealt with the problem of sin; the burnt offering, which expressed total dedication to God; the grain offering, which honored God’s provision; and the fellowship offering, sometimes called the peace offering, which celebrated the restored relationship between God and his people. Five offerings, each doing something different. But the system has a logic to it, and this logic matters more than the mechanics of it. When the offerings were brought, the order was fixed. Leviticus 9 shows this order of offering: sin offering first, then burnt, then fellowship. You can’t skip to peace with God. Sin has to be dealt with. You can’t dedicate yourself to him before you can be dedicated to him. And you have to be dedicated to him before you can enjoy fellowship with him. Sin, burnt, fellowship. The order isn’t arbitrary. The order is the gospel. You don’t start with fellowship. You start with the blood. In the last lesson, we talked about the bronze altar, the largest piece of furniture in the entire tabernacle complex, and the first thing inside that gate. You couldn’t skip it. You couldn’t go around it. Two lambs every day, one in the morning, one at night, plus whatever individual offerings were brought throughout the day. The four horns of this altar were smeared dark with blood. It was probably never fully clean. The next day, it would start again. This wasn’t necessarily a spectacular event. The person bringing the offering did most of the work himself. Look at Leviticus 1:3–5: “If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall bring it near, a male without blemish. He shall bring it near to the doorway of the tent of meeting that he may be accepted before Yahweh. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. Then he shall slaughter the young bull before Yahweh.” The person bringing this offering brings the animal himself. He lays his hand on its head, and then he kills it. I’m not a hunter. I’ve never field-dressed an animal, because that sounds like a terrible thing to do. I have no desire to do that. But this process is doing that before the animal ever dies. He draws the blade across the animal’s throat while his hand is still on its head. The animal bleeds out while the man’s hand is still pressing down on its skull. Blood pours onto the ground at his feet. The animal’s legs buckle. Its body convulses. And the man stands there with blood on his hands because God designed this system so that the cost of sin would be something you felt. They held the animal down while it struggled. Then the person who brought this offering kept working. He skinned the animal himself. He cut it into pieces, removed the internal organs, and the priest arranged the pieces on the altar. Then the priest offered up all of it in smoke, a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to Yahweh. The whole area smelled of blood and burning flesh. This is the aroma of worship under the old covenant. This is what it costs to come near to a holy God. I think we sanitize this. We’ll read, “He shall slaughter the young bull before Yahweh,” and our minds skip right to the theology. But God designed this process to be experienced and felt, with blood running down your arms, soaking your feet in the dirt, and the smell of an open carcass—which, I’ll tell you what, is awful. Back in the day, I did a Tyson chicken and International Beef Packers tour project, and walking into that space when it was not cooled will punch you in the face. I was proud. I was the only one that did not puke. Standing there in that moment must be atrocious. The cost of sin must feel like so much weight. It’s not just a hymn. This was not theological abstraction. This was life draining out of an animal while the offerer holds a blade in his hand. And God wanted his people to feel that every single time. This should have been you. You should be the one bleeding. You should be the one dying. The cost of your sin is life. Have you ever dealt with blood? Not like the paper cut I got yesterday moving cardboard. Real blood. Significant blood. That’s why I don’t want to do anything in the medical industry either. Blood is not cool. I’m good without it. I have to tell myself it’s just Hershey’s chocolate. They dye it red. This was flowing with blood. It stains everything. And God chose to use blood as a means of atonement, not water, not oil. Leviticus 17:11 says: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” Blood equals life. God designed it that way so that when blood was shed, we could see the cost of sin. The cost of sin is not effort. It’s not good intentions. It’s not a scale where your better acts outweigh your bad acts. Something has to die so someone else can live. The blood on the altar is visible, physical, unavoidable proof that sin is a life-and-death situation. And God is the one who provided the solution. The priest splashed blood around the altar, blood on the altar, blood at the doorway. There’s no way to approach God in this system without passing through blood. The author of Hebrews says, “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.” This isn’t just theology. It is the architecture of the system God built. There’s a grain offering too. It’s not about atonement. It’s a gift. Leviticus 2:1 describes fine flour mixed with oil and frankincense, offered to honor God’s provision. But even here he says there is no yeast. Throughout Scripture, yeast represents sin. You can’t bring an offering to God while clinging to the thing that separates you from him. Even the non-atoning offering teaches holiness. The guilt offering dealt with sins that caused specific harm to another person or to God’s holy things. Leviticus 6:5 describes someone who swore falsely or defrauded their neighbor. You didn’t just sacrifice a ram. You made full restitution, giving 20 percent more, and you gave it back on the day you brought your guilt offering. You had to make it right. There’s a phrase that repeats throughout these chapters: “The priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.” Over and over. Atonement, forgiven. This is the system God created, and the worshiper walks away forgiven. But he’s going to sin again, and he’s going to need another animal. The priest will need to do this again—over and over and over, next week, next month, next year. The repetition is the point. If this had been sufficient, he would have only needed to do this once. Hebrews 10:1 says: “For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.” The author of Hebrews is making an argument about the whole system. It is a shadow. It shows you the shape of something real, but the shadow itself can’t do what the object does. That’s what the law is. That’s what the sacrifices are. God genuinely accepted them, but they could never make the worshiper permanently right with God. They could never change the heart that kept producing the sin. The people living under the shadow were being trained year after year, sacrifice after sacrifice: recognize what the real sacrifice will be. Every animal that died on that altar was God teaching Israel the same lesson: you need this, and this isn’t enough. The system didn’t fail. It did what it was designed to do. It created a desire for something better. The Priesthood and the Danger of Casual Access What they needed was a mediator, and that’s the priesthood. God’s presence fills the tabernacle. The sacrificial system is now in place. Someone has to stand between God and the people and carry the blood past the curtain on behalf of a nation. So God chose the last person we probably would have expected: the guy who just made a calf. He chose Aaron and his sons, sinful men, to stand in his presence on behalf of the nation. God gave them what they needed to wear to be set apart. He put a plate on Aaron’s forehead to show that he doesn’t belong to himself; he’s in God’s service. He had a robe with bells on, just in case he died. If you don’t hear bells, you know the sacrifice didn’t work. He had a breastplate with 12 stones, one for each of the tribes of Israel. When he walked into God’s presence, he carried the entire nation with him. He goes in so they don’t have to. That is what a mediator does. He stands where the people cannot stand, and he carries them with him. We don’t have time to work through all of the details this morning, but they are worth reading and understanding. After all of this preparation, the priest still has to offer a sin offering for himself before he can offer anything else for the people. The man standing between God and Israel is a sinner, and he needs grace before he can even administer the sacrifice for the people. So every time he serves, the preparation begins over again. The priesthood is God’s provision for the gap, but it’s also a reminder of how wide this gap is. If the mediator himself needs atonement, what does that tell you about the distance between a holy God and the people he’s mediating for? God tells them what this is for. In Leviticus 9:6: “This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded you to do, so that the glory of Yahweh may appear to you.” The sacrifices weren’t just a list. They were a condition of seeing God’s glory. Obey the system he built and he will show up. Then, jumping down to verses 23–24: “And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting, then came out and blessed the people, and the glory of Yahweh appeared to all the people. Then fire came out from before Yahweh and consumed the burnt offering and the portions of fat on the altar. And all the people saw it, shouted, and fell on their faces.” Fire from the presence of God consuming the offering is God accepting the offering. God saw the blood, accepted the substitute, and demonstrated that the way was open. In that moment, the system was functioning exactly as God designed it. But it didn’t take long for us to screw it up. Leviticus 10, starting in verse 1: “Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective fire pans and put fire in them. Then they placed incense on it and offered strange fire before Yahweh, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of Yahweh and consumed them, and they died before Yahweh. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘It is what Yahweh spoke, saying, “By those who come near me, I will be treated as holy, and before all the people, I will be glorified.”' So Aaron kept silent.” The same fire in chapter 9—the fire from God’s presence—consumed the offering and the people shouted for joy. Then in chapter 10, the fire from God’s presence consumed the priests and everyone went silent. Same God, same holiness, same fire. The only difference was how God was approached. One chapter earlier, the entire nation was on its face in worship because God had accepted their offering. Now two of Aaron’s sons are dead, burned up in the tabernacle, because they decided the details of God’s instructions were flexible. The exact nature of their violation is debated. The text may hint they were drunk, because immediately after their death God gives Aaron a direct command about not drinking wine or strong drink when entering the tent of meeting. The specific violation matters less than the principle: “By those who come near me I will be treated as holy.” God defines the terms of nearness, and Aaron’s sons decided those terms were optional. The fire that had just accepted the sacrifice turned on the men who thought they could improvise. Aaron kept silent. His two oldest sons are dead on the ground, and he doesn’t say a word. He was grieving, but he knew Moses was right. God’s holiness is not negotiable, not even for a father’s grief. The silence is heavier than any words Aaron could have said at that moment. He stood there in his priestly garments, the blood of his ordination still probably on his ear and his thumb and his toe, and he had nothing to say. Because what do you say when you know God is just and your sons were wrong? You stand there in silence. We approach God every day, every week. We pray, we sing, we take communion. Christ secured that access for us. Nadab and Abihu are permanent reminders that access and casualness aren’t the same thing. The God we approach through Christ is the same God whose fire consumed unauthorized worship. His holiness has not changed. What changed is the sacrifice. A better priest offered a better sacrifice, and our access is permanent. But the God on the other side of that access is still the God whose fire fell in Leviticus 10. We come boldly, as Hebrews tells us, but we must come on his terms. We must come honoring his holiness. The Day of Atonement and the Two Goats The next lesson for the kids is on the atonement. The atonement sacrifice happens once a year, every year. These daily sacrifices are in the individual lesson: one person, one offering, one act of forgiveness. I’ve often wondered how long the line is for that. If it’s like Disneyland, you’re waiting for an hour. There’s no FastPass. But sin doesn’t just affect the sinner. It defiles the priests who handle it. It contaminates the tabernacle where God dwells. So the Day of Atonement addressed what the daily sacrifices couldn’t. Once a year, the high priest entered the room no one else could enter, carrying blood into the immediate presence of God. In Leviticus 16:2, Yahweh says to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil before the mercy seat which is on the ark, so that he will not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.” This first instruction is a warning: don’t come in whenever you want. You will die. The Holy of Holies is not an empty room. This is where God’s presence is. It’s unmediated by blood, and it will kill you. On this day, the high priest enters alone, burning incense so the smoke covers the mercy seat before he can even look in that direction. Without this incense, he will die. He brings blood first from a bull for himself, because the high priest still has to be atoned for before he can atone for anyone else. Then he slaughters a goat for the people and brings its blood inside the veil. Inside the ark sit the stone tablets, the law that every person in the camp has broken. Above the ark is the mercy seat, where God appears. The law underneath, God’s presence above, and the high priest sprinkles blood on the mercy seat and in front of it. Leviticus 16:14 tells us he sprinkles this blood seven times. That blood is the only thing standing between a nation of sinners and the holy judgment their sin deserves. It satisfies God’s judgment so that his mercy can reach his people. There are two goats brought for the people’s sin offering. The first goat is killed. Its blood goes inside the veil: payment for sin. But the second goat isn’t killed. In Leviticus 16:21–22: “Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins. And he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it out into the wilderness by the hand of a man ready to do this. And the goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an isolated land. And he shall send out the goat in the wilderness.” This is both hands, a full confession, a full transfer. The text uses, once again, the three different words for sin that we saw earlier: iniquities, transgressions, and sins. All of it laid on this goat and sent into the wilderness. The first goat dies as a payment, and the second goat signifies a removal. These truths are what God does with sin. He pays for it, and he carries it away. Eric read from Isaiah 53 on Friday, and it uses this same language. Isaiah 53:4–6 says: “Surely our griefs he himself bore, and our sorrows he carried away. Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.” Both of those goats point to Christ. The goat that died is Christ paying the penalty for our sins. The goat sent away is Christ removing our sins as far as the east is from the west. Two goats on the Day of Atonement, because it takes two pictures to show what one Savior accomplished in a single act. And once every year, that’s what Leviticus 16:34 says: “This is a perpetual statute.” If this had solved the problem, once would have been enough. But every year the high priest goes back behind the curtain. Every year the blood is sprinkled. Every year God is teaching Israel, “This isn’t the final answer.” In those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year, for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Hebrews 10:11 tells us, “And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God… For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Every priest stands. You stand when your work is not complete. Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father. He offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, and he sat down. The distance between those two realities is the distance Christ crossed, and we cannot fathom that distance. Scott talked Friday night about Matthew 27. In verse 51, when Jesus died, the veil of the sanctuary was torn from top to bottom. The veil existed for one reason: to keep people out. Not even the high priest could pass except once a year, covered in blood, hidden behind incense, and scared to death. For 1,500 years this curtain was saying, “You can’t come in here.” No animal sacrifice could remove it. The veil stayed because the sacrifice that could tear it had not yet been offered. When Christ died, God tore it from top to bottom. The sin that required the separation was dealt with permanently. Again in Hebrews 10:19: “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is through his flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from every evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” We are not trembling high priests. We’re not sitting in clouds of incense when we walk in here on a Sunday or when we sit in our quiet time. The blood of Jesus did what the blood of bulls and goats could never do. So draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith. Our nearness to God cost the Son everything. And now he sits. The job is complete. Be Holy: What the System Was Pointing Toward There’s one last lesson in the curriculum, and it’s in Leviticus 19. After everything we’ve walked through this morning—after the presence, after the sacrifices, after the priesthood, after the Day of Atonement—God says one more thing to his people. Leviticus 19:2: “Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I, Yahweh your God, am holy.'” The reason for holiness isn’t self-improvement. It’s to reflect God. God’s people look like God, not like the surrounding nations, not like whatever feels comfortable. “You shall be holy because I, Yahweh your God, am holy.” When we walked through holiness in the attribute series a few weeks ago, we looked at how Charnock described it. He called holiness the beauty of the Godhead. Power is God’s hands. Omniscience his eyes. Mercy his heart. Holiness is his beauty. Every other attribute is glorious, but holiness is what makes every other attribute beautiful. Power without holiness is tyranny. Sovereignty is oppression. Even love without holiness is sentimentality. Holiness is the purity that makes everything else about God trustworthy. And God says, “Be like that.” The commands in Leviticus 19 touch everything: honor your parents, no idols, leave grain in your field for the poor and the foreigner, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t take advantage of the deaf, don’t put a stumbling block before the blind, don’t pervert justice for anyone, rich or poor, don’t hate your brother in your heart. Holiness is more than don’t steal or cheat on your wife. The commands in this chapter push into territory that most people would consider optional. Leave part of your harvest in the field for people who can’t afford food. Keep your body clear of markings for the sake of being set apart as God’s holy people. Pay your workers on time. Don’t hold a grudge. Holiness touches your wallet, your body, your calendar, the conversations you have when the other person isn’t even in the room. Holiness is comprehensive. It’s relentless. It leaves no corner of your life untouched. And God says, “Be holy.” Leviticus 19:18 says, “You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh.” Jesus called this the second-greatest commandment, and this is the first time you see it. Some of these commandments carry into the New Testament, and some were fulfilled in Christ or belong specifically to Israel’s identity as a nation set apart from its neighbors. But the principle beneath every single one of these commands carries across every page of Scripture. God’s people are different, not because we’re better, but because God’s people belong to a holy God. And belonging to him changes what you do with every part of your life. Here’s where this section serves our main point this morning: nobody kept it. Nobody looks at Leviticus 19 and goes, “I did every single one of those perfectly.” Not fully, not consistently, certainly not for long. The call to holiness reveals the same thing the sacrifices revealed, the same thing the annual Day of Atonement revealed: there’s a distance. Even after God provides the presence, the sacrifices, the priests, and the atonement, the people still can’t close this gap on their own. God gave them the command, “Be holy.” He gave them detailed instructions for what holiness looks like, and they couldn’t do it. The law is perfect. We’re not. And the system teaches that we need him. That’s the whole point. Leviticus 19 is the last piece of evidence in the case that God has been building for us this morning. His presence is real, and still the people can’t be what God calls them to be. We need more than a system. We need the one the system was pointing to. And on this side of Calvary, what God commanded from the outside he now accomplishes from the inside. As Ezekiel 36:27 says, “I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes.” Christian, God gives you the power to be holy. It is a new power that you have when you commit your life to Christ. So that’s what these five lessons talk about. They talk about God’s presence. They talk about sacrifice. They talk about the need for a mediator and an atonement and holiness. Five layers of the same truth. God drew near to a sinful people, and he built an entire system so that they could survive his nearness. Every piece of that system worked, and every piece of that system was insufficient. The sacrifices had to be repeated. The priests needed their own atonement before they could offer. The call to holiness exposed what everybody already knew: we couldn’t do it. And the system did exactly what it was designed to do. It taught a people, and it teaches us, what we need. Then Christ came. The presence that filled the tabernacle became flesh and dwelt among us. The sacrifice that had to be repeated was offered once for all time. The priest who needed his own atonement was replaced by one who knew no sin. The Day of Atonement that came back every year was fulfilled in a single afternoon. The holiness that no one could keep was credited to everyone who belongs to him. The depth of our gratitude for what Christ accomplished is directly tied to how well we understand what he replaced. That’s why we spend time in Leviticus. That’s why we have Leviticus, so we can truly understand what Christ’s death replaced. Closing Prayer Lord God, many of us have heard the truth that you went to the cross to die for our sins our entire lives. We grew up either in the church or in a society that just assumes that. And yet we grew up 1,500 years or 3,500 years removed from these words on the page. This sacrificial system that was so significant and so difficult and so vivid—what it means to see a life taken for our sins—are words on a page. Lord, help these words on the page to penetrate our hearts, and help us to be lost in, to be consumed by, the truth of what your death on the cross meant. So this morning, as we celebrate your resurrection—because your resurrection shows that not only did you defeat sin, but you defeated death, that the work was finished—Lord, as we celebrate that, help this day not to be about family, but to be about you. Lord, we love you. Amen. The post Equipping Hour: Presence, Priesthood, and Atonement appeared first on Grace Bible Church.

Does God see me? Can I trust Him? Does God really care? The Doctrine of God's Omniscience answers questions of our everyday life and helps us to walk in comfort with greater faith in the all-knowing, infinitely wise God who never learns, never forgets, and sovereignly ordains all things for His glory and our good. God's perfect knowledge guarantees His promises, fuels genuine repentance, and shines brightest in the wisdom of the gospel — Jesus Christ, the power and wisdom of God.

 We've been focusing on the first 3 chapters of Revelation and looking at 7 letters to 7 churches that are direct messages from Jesus to real first century churches in modern-day Turkey. Besides a few exceptions, the letters all contained four major parts: 1. Introduction – "I am the One..." 2. Commendation – "I know your works..." 3. Correction – "I have this against you..." 4. Promises – "To the one who overcomes..."   In this message, Lead Pastor Jamie Nunnally considers what Jesus would say to us if we were to get a letter written from John?   Following the 4 sections of each Revelation letter, I want to give you 4 final timeless truths for us to respond to this morning:   1. Jesus knows you and He is everything you need. The first part of each letter was Jesus' introduction of Himself. Because He knows you, He knows what you need. Jesus is not only aware of our struggles, He is the solution to them. John 10:14 NLT  He doesn't diagnose your life from a distance, He steps into your life with you.   2. Jesus sees you and celebrates what's good. In every letter in Revelation, Jesus starts the same way—"I know your works." Before He corrects them, He commends them. Psalm 103:8-14 NLT  God isn't only your Judge, He's your Dad. He is not standing over you with a clipboard making note of all your mistakes. God doesn't just see where you failed; He sees where you fought. He doesn't only point out your mistakes; He celebrates your progress.   3. Jesus loves you enough to correct what's wrong.   God doesn't leave us where He found us. Correction is not rejection, it's redirection toward who you're becoming. Prov. 3:11-12 NLT  The enemy's voice brings shame, but God's voice brings change. God doesn't correct you because He's mad at you; He corrects you because He's committed to you.   4.  Jesus' promises for your future are greater than the failures of your past. Even though God corrected His churches, He always gave them a promise of something good that would happen if they repented and returned. Overcomers aren't those who never fall, but those who refuse to stay down. 2 Peter 1:4 NLT God's promises are activated by obedience. Obedience turns a promise from possibility to a guarantee.   On the other side of your obedience is a version of your life you haven't seen yet, but it's what you really want. Jesus knows you, and He is everything you need. Jesus sees and He celebrates what's good. Jesus loves you enough to correct what's wrong. And Jesus has promised something greater if you respond.   And VFC is not just a church with a past to celebrate; we're a church with a promise to step into. Respond, repent, and return.   Do you have ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to you?

Please follow and Like this episode. It helps a lot."Humbled Through Confusion" where Anita discusses God's Omniscience vs. our arrogance. #AnitaSpeaks #BibleStudy #PersonalGrowthShow RunnerIf God is not the author of confusion, why are churches confused?Does God use confusion as a weapon?Are there times when God will throw someone into confusion?What does it mean to be confused in your faith?How can a believer identify a confused person?Anita is a teacher who provides practical discussions around the Word God.

Pastor Wayne Van Gelderen shares biblical truth that will bring hope and comfort in these uncertain days. May we draw closer to God through this time and impact those around us for eternity. https://fallsbaptist.org https://baptistcollege.org https://www.theegeneration.org https://ontovictorypress.com If you'd like to support this ministry - https://fallsbaptist.org/give/

The Attributes of God: The Omniscience of God Psalm 139:1-14

God knows. God's knowledge of all things past, present, and future is exhaustive, penetrating, and incomprehensible. Psalm 139 is David's meditation that the God of all knowledge knew him. He knows us too.

Get practical tips on how to improve your ability to hear God's voice through His Word, enriching your daily walk with Him

Contact Welcomed Here"The horizon of many people is a circle with a radius of zero. They call this their point of view." Albert Einstein. It is not a loss of memory but the lack of human perspective we suffer by imagining all that we are is the subject of subjective thought. A dimension of zero has no perspective in space and time - so any imagined self has no value, awareness, or place since it has no life being wholly imagined.  Feeling like you don't belong is caused by thoughts that have no basis, and so no place in Reality. To think imagination is reality is to think reality is fantasy and turns the extraordinary benefit of imagination into a dire liability.    Thinking is not the source of existence while it is the primary source of human experience. Thinking naturally offers the potential to exist humanely and the freedom to mis-think and act inhumane. Nature is natural and so it is our nature. Insanity is a byproduct of unnatural, unhealthy, abnormal obsessive thinking.  Social ills are the collective nature of sick thoughts: mental illness.  Any clamoring voices in our heads are attached to ideas that are only thought to be true, masquerading as all that can be.  The reactive nature of addiction starts with denial that we are not causing the experience we have.  To think of mental suffering as happening to us is to think we have nothing to do with what and how we think.  The inducement and imposition of thoughts in conflict starts with our choices and the decsion they are right, while that is never if ever the case.  Limited thoughts always have room from improvement.  Absolute Right never changes since there is no more or less an Infinite Source can or will ever Be.  We Know We Know. We Are Aware We Are Aware. We Are as We Are. Reality is unlimited and never changes. The idea that how and what we think creates reality suggests otherwise. Acting on backward thoughts leads to behaviors that are out of order reflecting a reversal of our natural fortune that are accurately called disorders. Anxious, nervous and systemic disorders reflect this impossible attempt to reverse Nature's Law and Order and our Universe's Essence. Dis-ease is the lack of ease created and maintained by such twisted mental acrobatics. Stress and Anxiety inhibit healing and compound and degrade health. Mentality is a bodily function. Mental disease is a physcial ailment. For as long as it is misdiagnosed - any cure or treatment will perpetuate its contagion. Principles affirm Our Indivisible nature. Sharing Principles confirms our natural indivisibility. Inspiration is natural while desperation, depression, degradation and acting oblivious to what is obvious is an unnatural choice to oppose reality which is impossible to accomplish though we are free to try. Ignoring what is happening, acting as though it shouldn't be or isn't happening, produces the unintelligible gibberish of ignorance - not reality.

Sign up for our e-newsletter today! --------Thank you for listening! Your support of Joni and Friends helps make this show possible. Joni and Friends envisions a world where every person with a disability finds hope, dignity, and their place in the body of Christ. Become part of the global movement today at www.joniandfriends.org. Find more encouragement on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube.

From Genesis and on through the Bible we have evidences of what God in His Omnipresence (and Omniscience, and Omnipotence) does in the lives of individuals and with all creation. To watch the video from today's church service, just click on this link! The post “God's Omnipresence” – Victor Ogiem Udia appeared first on Living Rock Church.

We continue in Mark 2:1-12 with savior's demonstrated authority.Both Matthew 9 and Luke 5 present this same incident of four men making a way to the savior through the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching.The problem the scribes and pharisees had was their ignorance of the savior and His divine authority. It is easy to say words that declare the forgiveness of sins, but only the Lord Jesus has the divine authority to not only declare it, but to make it happen. Our Lord demonstrated the divine authority of God in commanding the paralytic man to rise up, take his stretcher and go home. He did just that in the presence of all the people. The people were completely astounded by this miracle in which Jesus demonstrated His Deity and forgiveness of sins.Here is Dr. Mitchell on the Unchanging Word Bible Broadcast, Mark 2:5.

Contact Welcomed HereAbstinence is sanity for any compulsive behavior. Emotional Sobriety is living sanely once abstinent.  Addiction is a mental problems. Obsessive thougths are not a product of wrong thoughts - but imagning they are right.  We are not here to talk about stopping but to come to terms with the fact that we each are Responsible for what we start - and its consqeunces.  Principles are Absolute. They never change. The primary mental failing is imagining they do while it is our thinking about them that does. Abstinence, Right thinking and right action are the aim of symptomatic recovery and emotional sobriety.  The degree to which we correct any misidentification or misunderstanding about the functional capacity of our body, brain, feelings, words or behaviors or determines whether we choose from the desperation and dysfunction or rely on our natural functional capacity of Inspiration, Intuituion and Wisdom. Sobriety is not about acting right but the natural able flexibility of correcting wrongs. The body cannot process highly processed forms of nature, like alcohol, drugs, refined sugar or highly processed food.  The brain, in the body, cannot process insanity: highly processed mental fixations on fictional, imagination believed to be reality. All matter in the universe has substance, including our human body and conscoiusness. Lies are simply possibilities of thought with no substance - including the thoughts determining they are true, real and always right. We Know We Know. We Are Aware We Are Aware. We Are as We Are. Reality is unlimited and never changes. The idea that how and what we think creates reality suggests otherwise. Acting on backward thoughts leads to behaviors that are out of order reflecting a reversal of our natural fortune that are accurately called disorders. Anxious, nervous and systemic disorders reflect this impossible attempt to reverse Nature's Law and Order and our Universe's Essence. Dis-ease is the lack of ease created and maintained by such twisted mental acrobatics. Stress and Anxiety inhibit healing and compound and degrade health. Mentality is a bodily function. Mental disease is a physcial ailment. For as long as it is misdiagnosed - any cure or treatment will perpetuate its contagion. Principles affirm Our Indivisible nature. Sharing Principles confirms our natural indivisibility. Inspiration is natural while desperation, depression, degradation and acting oblivious to what is obvious is an unnatural choice to oppose reality which is impossible to accomplish though we are free to try. Ignoring what is happening, acting as though it shouldn't be or isn't happening, produces the unintelligible gibberish of ignorance - not reality.

“Why does God allow evil?” This question challenges many, and Christian philosophers have offered various responses. Additionally, the discussion touches on the nature of the spirit and its consciousness, the concept of apostolic succession and its documentation, and how to articulate the differences in understanding the Eucharist to those unfamiliar with it. Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 01:30 – Atheists often argue that evil is evidence against God. If God were all-good, they argue, then no evil would exist. Christian philosophers have given a plethora of responses to this objection. But I was wondering how would Dr. Karlo respond. 15:21 – What is the spirit? What does the Church teach about this and does it teach whether the spirit is conscious? 21:23 – Apostolic succession. Which document shows this unbroken line of papal succession? How could you prove this to a protestant? 36:32 – I'm in RCIA. How do I explain the differences in understanding of the eucharist to someone who is not familiar with it? 47:20 – Regarding God's omniscience. Is there ever a point where God knows everything we will do before he creates us?

Our title today comprises two categories: 1st) The character of God & 2nd) Our posture in light of His glory. Because God sees all, because His presence is universal, we ought to fear him. This is a theme resurfacing throughout Proverbs chapter 15 like the base line melody of a movie score. Note verses 3 & 11 expounding the nature of God while verses 16 & 33 exhort us to respond accordingly.  Solomon advocates living in light of the omniscience God and Proverbs chapter 15 provides practical ways to do this. Wisdom realizes that the scope of human liberty, ability, virtue and understanding is delimited by an infinitely wise and sovereign God and the precepts outlining the fear of Him are found in His Word.

Happy New Year! You may have noticed that in 2025 we had moved toward YouTube as our primary podcasting platform. As we'll explain in the next State of Latent Space post, we'll be doubling down on Substack again and improving the experience for the over 100,000 of you who look out for our emails and website updates!We first mentioned Artificial Analysis in 2024, when it was still a side project in a Sydney basement. They then were one of the few Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross' AIGrant companies to raise a full seed round from them and have now become the independent gold standard for AI benchmarking—trusted by developers, enterprises, and every major lab to navigate the exploding landscape of models, providers, and capabilities.We have chatted with both Clementine Fourrier of HuggingFace's OpenLLM Leaderboard and (the freshly valued at $1.7B) Anastasios Angelopoulos of LMArena on their approaches to LLM evals and trendspotting, but Artificial Analysis have staked out an enduring and important place in the toolkit of the modern AI Engineer by doing the best job of independently running the most comprehensive set of evals across the widest range of open and closed models, and charting their progress for broad industry analyst use.George Cameron and Micah-Hill Smith have spent two years building Artificial Analysis into the platform that answers the questions no one else will: Which model is actually best for your use case? What are the real speed-cost trade-offs? And how open is “open” really?We discuss:* The origin story: built as a side project in 2023 while Micah was building a legal AI assistant, launched publicly in January 2024, and went viral after Swyx's retweet* Why they run evals themselves: labs prompt models differently, cherry-pick chain-of-thought examples (Google Gemini 1.0 Ultra used 32-shot prompts to beat GPT-4 on MMLU), and self-report inflated numbers* The mystery shopper policy: they register accounts not on their own domain and run intelligence + performance benchmarks incognito to prevent labs from serving different models on private endpoints* How they make money: enterprise benchmarking insights subscription (standardized reports on model deployment, serverless vs. managed vs. leasing chips) and private custom benchmarking for AI companies (no one pays to be on the public leaderboard)* The Intelligence Index (V3): synthesizes 10 eval datasets (MMLU, GPQA, agentic benchmarks, long-context reasoning) into a single score, with 95% confidence intervals via repeated runs* Omissions Index (hallucination rate): scores models from -100 to +100 (penalizing incorrect answers, rewarding ”I don't know”), and Claude models lead with the lowest hallucination rates despite not always being the smartest* GDP Val AA: their version of OpenAI's GDP-bench (44 white-collar tasks with spreadsheets, PDFs, PowerPoints), run through their Stirrup agent harness (up to 100 turns, code execution, web search, file system), graded by Gemini 3 Pro as an LLM judge (tested extensively, no self-preference bias)* The Openness Index: scores models 0-18 on transparency of pre-training data, post-training data, methodology, training code, and licensing (AI2 OLMo 2 leads, followed by Nous Hermes and NVIDIA Nemotron)* The smiling curve of AI costs: GPT-4-level intelligence is 100-1000x cheaper than at launch (thanks to smaller models like Amazon Nova), but frontier reasoning models in agentic workflows cost more than ever (sparsity, long context, multi-turn agents)* Why sparsity might go way lower than 5%: GPT-4.5 is ~5% active, Gemini models might be ~3%, and Omissions Index accuracy correlates with total parameters (not active), suggesting massive sparse models are the future* Token efficiency vs. turn efficiency: GPT-5 costs more per token but solves Tau-bench in fewer turns (cheaper overall), and models are getting better at using more tokens only when needed (5.1 Codex has tighter token distributions)* V4 of the Intelligence Index coming soon: adding GDP Val AA, Critical Point, hallucination rate, and dropping some saturated benchmarks (human-eval-style coding is now trivial for small models)Links to Artificial Analysis* Website: https://artificialanalysis.ai* George Cameron on X: https://x.com/georgecameron* Micah-Hill Smith on X: https://x.com/micahhsmithFull Episode on YouTubeTimestamps* 00:00 Introduction: Full Circle Moment and Artificial Analysis Origins* 01:19 Business Model: Independence and Revenue Streams* 04:33 Origin Story: From Legal AI to Benchmarking Need* 16:22 AI Grant and Moving to San Francisco* 19:21 Intelligence Index Evolution: From V1 to V3* 11:47 Benchmarking Challenges: Variance, Contamination, and Methodology* 13:52 Mystery Shopper Policy and Maintaining Independence* 28:01 New Benchmarks: Omissions Index for Hallucination Detection* 33:36 Critical Point: Hard Physics Problems and Research-Level Reasoning* 23:01 GDP Val AA: Agentic Benchmark for Real Work Tasks* 50:19 Stirrup Agent Harness: Open Source Agentic Framework* 52:43 Openness Index: Measuring Model Transparency Beyond Licenses* 58:25 The Smiling Curve: Cost Falling While Spend Rising* 1:02:32 Hardware Efficiency: Blackwell Gains and Sparsity Limits* 1:06:23 Reasoning Models and Token Efficiency: The Spectrum Emerges* 1:11:00 Multimodal Benchmarking: Image, Video, and Speech Arenas* 1:15:05 Looking Ahead: Intelligence Index V4 and Future Directions* 1:16:50 Closing: The Insatiable Demand for IntelligenceTranscriptMicah [00:00:06]: This is kind of a full circle moment for us in a way, because the first time artificial analysis got mentioned on a podcast was you and Alessio on Latent Space. Amazing.swyx [00:00:17]: Which was January 2024. I don't even remember doing that, but yeah, it was very influential to me. Yeah, I'm looking at AI News for Jan 17, or Jan 16, 2024. I said, this gem of a models and host comparison site was just launched. And then I put in a few screenshots, and I said, it's an independent third party. It clearly outlines the quality versus throughput trade-off, and it breaks out by model and hosting provider. I did give you s**t for missing fireworks, and how do you have a model benchmarking thing without fireworks? But you had together, you had perplexity, and I think we just started chatting there. Welcome, George and Micah, to Latent Space. I've been following your progress. Congrats on... It's been an amazing year. You guys have really come together to be the presumptive new gardener of AI, right? Which is something that...George [00:01:09]: Yeah, but you can't pay us for better results.swyx [00:01:12]: Yes, exactly.George [00:01:13]: Very important.Micah [00:01:14]: Start off with a spicy take.swyx [00:01:18]: Okay, how do I pay you?Micah [00:01:20]: Let's get right into that.swyx [00:01:21]: How do you make money?Micah [00:01:24]: Well, very happy to talk about that. So it's been a big journey the last couple of years. Artificial analysis is going to be two years old in January 2026. Which is pretty soon now. We first run the website for free, obviously, and give away a ton of data to help developers and companies navigate AI and make decisions about models, providers, technologies across the AI stack for building stuff. We're very committed to doing that and tend to keep doing that. We have, along the way, built a business that is working out pretty sustainably. We've got just over 20 people now and two main customer groups. So we want to be... We want to be who enterprise look to for data and insights on AI, so we want to help them with their decisions about models and technologies for building stuff. And then on the other side, we do private benchmarking for companies throughout the AI stack who build AI stuff. So no one pays to be on the website. We've been very clear about that from the very start because there's no use doing what we do unless it's independent AI benchmarking. Yeah. But turns out a bunch of our stuff can be pretty useful to companies building AI stuff.swyx [00:02:38]: And is it like, I am a Fortune 500, I need advisors on objective analysis, and I call you guys and you pull up a custom report for me, you come into my office and give me a workshop? What kind of engagement is that?George [00:02:53]: So we have a benchmarking and insight subscription, which looks like standardized reports that cover key topics or key challenges enterprises face when looking to understand AI and choose between all the technologies. And so, for instance, one of the report is a model deployment report, how to think about choosing between serverless inference, managed deployment solutions, or leasing chips. And running inference yourself is an example kind of decision that big enterprises face, and it's hard to reason through, like this AI stuff is really new to everybody. And so we try and help with our reports and insight subscription. Companies navigate that. We also do custom private benchmarking. And so that's very different from the public benchmarking that we publicize, and there's no commercial model around that. For private benchmarking, we'll at times create benchmarks, run benchmarks to specs that enterprises want. And we'll also do that sometimes for AI companies who have built things, and we help them understand what they've built with private benchmarking. Yeah. So that's a piece mainly that we've developed through trying to support everybody publicly with our public benchmarks. Yeah.swyx [00:04:09]: Let's talk about TechStack behind that. But okay, I'm going to rewind all the way to when you guys started this project. You were all the way in Sydney? Yeah. Well, Sydney, Australia for me.Micah [00:04:19]: George was an SF, but he's Australian, but he moved here already. Yeah.swyx [00:04:22]: And I remember I had the Zoom call with you. What was the impetus for starting artificial analysis in the first place? You know, you started with public benchmarks. And so let's start there. We'll go to the private benchmark. Yeah.George [00:04:33]: Why don't we even go back a little bit to like why we, you know, thought that it was needed? Yeah.Micah [00:04:40]: The story kind of begins like in 2022, 2023, like both George and I have been into AI stuff for quite a while. In 2023 specifically, I was trying to build a legal AI research assistant. So it actually worked pretty well for its era, I would say. Yeah. Yeah. So I was finding that the more you go into building something using LLMs, the more each bit of what you're doing ends up being a benchmarking problem. So had like this multistage algorithm thing, trying to figure out what the minimum viable model for each bit was, trying to optimize every bit of it as you build that out, right? Like you're trying to think about accuracy, a bunch of other metrics and performance and cost. And mostly just no one was doing anything to independently evaluate all the models. And certainly not to look at the trade-offs for speed and cost. So we basically set out just to build a thing that developers could look at to see the trade-offs between all of those things measured independently across all the models and providers. Honestly, it was probably meant to be a side project when we first started doing it.swyx [00:05:49]: Like we didn't like get together and say like, Hey, like we're going to stop working on all this stuff. I'm like, this is going to be our main thing. When I first called you, I think you hadn't decided on starting a company yet.Micah [00:05:58]: That's actually true. I don't even think we'd pause like, like George had an acquittance job. I didn't quit working on my legal AI thing. Like it was genuinely a side project.George [00:06:05]: We built it because we needed it as people building in the space and thought, Oh, other people might find it useful too. So we'll buy domain and link it to the Vercel deployment that we had and tweet about it. And, but very quickly it started getting attention. Thank you, Swyx for, I think doing an initial retweet and spotlighting it there. This project that we released. And then very quickly though, it was useful to others, but very quickly it became more useful as the number of models released accelerated. We had Mixtrel 8x7B and it was a key. That's a fun one. Yeah. Like a open source model that really changed the landscape and opened up people's eyes to other serverless inference providers and thinking about speed, thinking about cost. And so that was a key. And so it became more useful quite quickly. Yeah.swyx [00:07:02]: What I love talking to people like you who sit across the ecosystem is, well, I have theories about what people want, but you have data and that's obviously more relevant. But I want to stay on the origin story a little bit more. When you started out, I would say, I think the status quo at the time was every paper would come out and they would report their numbers versus competitor numbers. And that's basically it. And I remember I did the legwork. I think everyone has some knowledge. I think there's some version of Excel sheet or a Google sheet where you just like copy and paste the numbers from every paper and just post it up there. And then sometimes they don't line up because they're independently run. And so your numbers are going to look better than... Your reproductions of other people's numbers are going to look worse because you don't hold their models correctly or whatever the excuse is. I think then Stanford Helm, Percy Liang's project would also have some of these numbers. And I don't know if there's any other source that you can cite. The way that if I were to start artificial analysis at the same time you guys started, I would have used the Luther AI's eval framework harness. Yup.Micah [00:08:06]: Yup. That was some cool stuff. At the end of the day, running these evals, it's like if it's a simple Q&A eval, all you're doing is asking a list of questions and checking if the answers are right, which shouldn't be that crazy. But it turns out there are an enormous number of things that you've got control for. And I mean, back when we started the website. Yeah. Yeah. Like one of the reasons why we realized that we had to run the evals ourselves and couldn't just take rules from the labs was just that they would all prompt the models differently. And when you're competing over a few points, then you can pretty easily get- You can put the answer into the model. Yeah. That in the extreme. And like you get crazy cases like back when I'm Googled a Gemini 1.0 Ultra and needed a number that would say it was better than GPT-4 and like constructed, I think never published like chain of thought examples. 32 of them in every topic in MLU to run it, to get the score, like there are so many things that you- They never shipped Ultra, right? That's the one that never made it up. Not widely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure it existed, but yeah. So we were pretty sure that we needed to run them ourselves and just run them in the same way across all the models. Yeah. And we were, we also did certain from the start that you couldn't look at those in isolation. You needed to look at them alongside the cost and performance stuff. Yeah.swyx [00:09:24]: Okay. A couple of technical questions. I mean, so obviously I also thought about this and I didn't do it because of cost. Yep. Did you not worry about costs? Were you funded already? Clearly not, but you know. No. Well, we definitely weren't at the start.Micah [00:09:36]: So like, I mean, we're paying for it personally at the start. There's a lot of money. Well, the numbers weren't nearly as bad a couple of years ago. So we certainly incurred some costs, but we were probably in the order of like hundreds of dollars of spend across all the benchmarking that we were doing. Yeah. So nothing. Yeah. It was like kind of fine. Yeah. Yeah. These days that's gone up an enormous amount for a bunch of reasons that we can talk about. But yeah, it wasn't that bad because you can also remember that like the number of models we were dealing with was hardly any and the complexity of the stuff that we wanted to do to evaluate them was a lot less. Like we were just asking some Q&A type questions and then one specific thing was for a lot of evals initially, we were just like sampling an answer. You know, like, what's the answer for this? Like, we didn't want to go into the answer directly without letting the models think. We weren't even doing chain of thought stuff initially. And that was the most useful way to get some results initially. Yeah.swyx [00:10:33]: And so for people who haven't done this work, literally parsing the responses is a whole thing, right? Like because sometimes the models, the models can answer any way they feel fit and sometimes they actually do have the right answer, but they just returned the wrong format and they will get a zero for that unless you work it into your parser. And that involves more work. And so, I mean, but there's an open question whether you should give it points for not following your instructions on the format.Micah [00:11:00]: It depends what you're looking at, right? Because you can, if you're trying to see whether or not it can solve a particular type of reasoning problem, and you don't want to test it on its ability to do answer formatting at the same time, then you might want to use an LLM as answer extractor approach to make sure that you get the answer out no matter how unanswered. But these days, it's mostly less of a problem. Like, if you instruct a model and give it examples of what the answers should look like, it can get the answers in your format, and then you can do, like, a simple regex.swyx [00:11:28]: Yeah, yeah. And then there's other questions around, I guess, sometimes if you have a multiple choice question, sometimes there's a bias towards the first answer, so you have to randomize the responses. All these nuances, like, once you dig into benchmarks, you're like, I don't know how anyone believes the numbers on all these things. It's so dark magic.Micah [00:11:47]: You've also got, like… You've got, like, the different degrees of variance in different benchmarks, right? Yeah. So, if you run four-question multi-choice on a modern reasoning model at the temperatures suggested by the labs for their own models, the variance that you can see on a four-question multi-choice eval is pretty enormous if you only do a single run of it and it has a small number of questions, especially. So, like, one of the things that we do is run an enormous number of all of our evals when we're developing new ones and doing upgrades to our intelligence index to bring in new things. Yeah. So, that we can dial in the right number of repeats so that we can get to the 95% confidence intervals that we're comfortable with so that when we pull that together, we can be confident in intelligence index to at least as tight as, like, a plus or minus one at a 95% confidence. Yeah.swyx [00:12:32]: And, again, that just adds a straight multiple to the cost. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah.George [00:12:37]: So, that's one of many reasons that cost has gone up a lot more than linearly over the last couple of years. We report a cost to run the artificial analysis. We report a cost to run the artificial analysis intelligence index on our website, and currently that's assuming one repeat in terms of how we report it because we want to reflect a bit about the weighting of the index. But our cost is actually a lot higher than what we report there because of the repeats.swyx [00:13:03]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And probably this is true, but just checking, you don't have any special deals with the labs. They don't discount it. You just pay out of pocket or out of your sort of customer funds. Oh, there is a mix. So, the issue is that sometimes they may give you a special end point, which is… Ah, 100%.Micah [00:13:21]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. So, we laser focus, like, on everything we do on having the best independent metrics and making sure that no one can manipulate them in any way. There are quite a lot of processes we've developed over the last couple of years to make that true for, like, the one you bring up, like, right here of the fact that if we're working with a lab, if they're giving us a private endpoint to evaluate a model, that it is totally possible. That what's sitting behind that black box is not the same as they serve on a public endpoint. We're very aware of that. We have what we call a mystery shopper policy. And so, and we're totally transparent with all the labs we work with about this, that we will register accounts not on our own domain and run both intelligence evals and performance benchmarks… Yeah, that's the job. …without them being able to identify it. And no one's ever had a problem with that. Because, like, a thing that turns out to actually be quite a good… …good factor in the industry is that they all want to believe that none of their competitors could manipulate what we're doing either.swyx [00:14:23]: That's true. I never thought about that. I've been in the database data industry prior, and there's a lot of shenanigans around benchmarking, right? So I'm just kind of going through the mental laundry list. Did I miss anything else in this category of shenanigans? Oh, potential shenanigans.Micah [00:14:36]: I mean, okay, the biggest one, like, that I'll bring up, like, is more of a conceptual one, actually, than, like, direct shenanigans. It's that the things that get measured become things that get targeted by labs that they're trying to build, right? Exactly. So that doesn't mean anything that we should really call shenanigans. Like, I'm not talking about training on test set. But if you know that you're going to be great at another particular thing, if you're a researcher, there are a whole bunch of things that you can do to try to get better at that thing that preferably are going to be helpful for a wide range of how actual users want to use the thing that you're building. But will not necessarily work. Will not necessarily do that. So, for instance, the models are exceptional now at answering competition maths problems. There is some relevance of that type of reasoning, that type of work, to, like, how we might use modern coding agents and stuff. But it's clearly not one for one. So the thing that we have to be aware of is that once an eval becomes the thing that everyone's looking at, scores can get better on it without there being a reflection of overall generalized intelligence of these models. Getting better. That has been true for the last couple of years. It'll be true for the next couple of years. There's no silver bullet to defeat that other than building new stuff to stay relevant and measure the capabilities that matter most to real users. Yeah.swyx [00:15:58]: And we'll cover some of the new stuff that you guys are building as well, which is cool. Like, you used to just run other people's evals, but now you're coming up with your own. And I think, obviously, that is a necessary path once you're at the frontier. You've exhausted all the existing evals. I think the next point in history that I have for you is AI Grant that you guys decided to join and move here. What was it like? I think you were in, like, batch two? Batch four. Batch four. Okay.Micah [00:16:26]: I mean, it was great. Nat and Daniel are obviously great. And it's a really cool group of companies that we were in AI Grant alongside. It was really great to get Nat and Daniel on board. Obviously, they've done a whole lot of great work in the space with a lot of leading companies and were extremely aligned. With the mission of what we were trying to do. Like, we're not quite typical of, like, a lot of the other AI startups that they've invested in.swyx [00:16:53]: And they were very much here for the mission of what we want to do. Did they say any advice that really affected you in some way or, like, were one of the events very impactful? That's an interesting question.Micah [00:17:03]: I mean, I remember fondly a bunch of the speakers who came and did fireside chats at AI Grant.swyx [00:17:09]: Which is also, like, a crazy list. Yeah.George [00:17:11]: Oh, totally. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There was something about, you know, speaking to Nat and Daniel about the challenges of working through a startup and just working through the questions that don't have, like, clear answers and how to work through those kind of methodically and just, like, work through the hard decisions. And they've been great mentors to us as we've built artificial analysis. Another benefit for us was that other companies in the batch and other companies in AI Grant are pushing the capabilities. Yeah. And I think that's a big part of what AI can do at this time. And so being in contact with them, making sure that artificial analysis is useful to them has been fantastic for supporting us in working out how should we build out artificial analysis to continue to being useful to those, like, you know, building on AI.swyx [00:17:59]: I think to some extent, I'm mixed opinion on that one because to some extent, your target audience is not people in AI Grants who are obviously at the frontier. Yeah. Do you disagree?Micah [00:18:09]: To some extent. To some extent. But then, so a lot of what the AI Grant companies are doing is taking capabilities coming out of the labs and trying to push the limits of what they can do across the entire stack for building great applications, which actually makes some of them pretty archetypical power users of artificial analysis. Some of the people with the strongest opinions about what we're doing well and what we're not doing well and what they want to see next from us. Yeah. Yeah. Because when you're building any kind of AI application now, chances are you're using a whole bunch of different models. You're maybe switching reasonably frequently for different models and different parts of your application to optimize what you're able to do with them at an accuracy level and to get better speed and cost characteristics. So for many of them, no, they're like not commercial customers of ours, like we don't charge for all our data on the website. Yeah. They are absolutely some of our power users.swyx [00:19:07]: So let's talk about just the evals as well. So you start out from the general like MMU and GPQA stuff. What's next? How do you sort of build up to the overall index? What was in V1 and how did you evolve it? Okay.Micah [00:19:22]: So first, just like background, like we're talking about the artificial analysis intelligence index, which is our synthesis metric that we pulled together currently from 10 different eval data sets to give what? We're pretty much the same as that. Pretty confident is the best single number to look at for how smart the models are. Obviously, it doesn't tell the whole story. That's why we published the whole website of all the charts to dive into every part of it and look at the trade-offs. But best single number. So right now, it's got a bunch of Q&A type data sets that have been very important to the industry, like a couple that you just mentioned. It's also got a couple of agentic data sets. It's got our own long context reasoning data set and some other use case focused stuff. As time goes on. The things that we're most interested in that are going to be important to the capabilities that are becoming more important for AI, what developers are caring about, are going to be first around agentic capabilities. So surprise, surprise. We're all loving our coding agents and how the model is going to perform like that and then do similar things for different types of work are really important to us. The linking to use cases to economically valuable use cases are extremely important to us. And then we've got some of the. Yeah. These things that the models still struggle with, like working really well over long contexts that are not going to go away as specific capabilities and use cases that we need to keep evaluating.swyx [00:20:46]: But I guess one thing I was driving was like the V1 versus the V2 and how bad it was over time.Micah [00:20:53]: Like how we've changed the index to where we are.swyx [00:20:55]: And I think that reflects on the change in the industry. Right. So that's a nice way to tell that story.Micah [00:21:00]: Well, V1 would be completely saturated right now. Almost every model coming out because doing things like writing the Python functions and human evil is now pretty trivial. It's easy to forget, actually, I think how much progress has been made in the last two years. Like we obviously play the game constantly of like the today's version versus last week's version and the week before and all of the small changes in the horse race between the current frontier and who has the best like smaller than 10B model like right now this week. Right. And that's very important to a lot of developers and people and especially in this particular city of San Francisco. But when you zoom out a couple of years ago, literally most of what we were doing to evaluate the models then would all be 100% solved by even pretty small models today. And that's been one of the key things, by the way, that's driven down the cost of intelligence at every tier of intelligence. We can talk about more in a bit. So V1, V2, V3, we made things harder. We covered a wider range of use cases. And we tried to get closer to things developers care about as opposed to like just the Q&A type stuff that MMLU and GPQA represented. Yeah.swyx [00:22:12]: I don't know if you have anything to add there. Or we could just go right into showing people the benchmark and like looking around and asking questions about it. Yeah.Micah [00:22:21]: Let's do it. Okay. This would be a pretty good way to chat about a few of the new things we've launched recently. Yeah.George [00:22:26]: And I think a little bit about the direction that we want to take it. And we want to push benchmarks. Currently, the intelligence index and evals focus a lot on kind of raw intelligence. But we kind of want to diversify how we think about intelligence. And we can talk about it. But kind of new evals that we've kind of built and partnered on focus on topics like hallucination. And we've got a lot of topics that I think are not covered by the current eval set that should be. And so we want to bring that forth. But before we get into that.swyx [00:23:01]: And so for listeners, just as a timestamp, right now, number one is Gemini 3 Pro High. Then followed by Cloud Opus at 70. Just 5.1 high. You don't have 5.2 yet. And Kimi K2 Thinking. Wow. Still hanging in there. So those are the top four. That will date this podcast quickly. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I love it. I love it. No, no. 100%. Look back this time next year and go, how cute. Yep.George [00:23:25]: Totally. A quick view of that is, okay, there's a lot. I love it. I love this chart. Yeah.Micah [00:23:30]: This is such a favorite, right? Yeah. And almost every talk that George or I give at conferences and stuff, we always put this one up first to just talk about situating where we are in this moment in history. This, I think, is the visual version of what I was saying before about the zooming out and remembering how much progress there's been. If we go back to just over a year ago, before 01, before Cloud Sonnet 3.5, we didn't have reasoning models or coding agents as a thing. And the game was very, very different. If we go back even a little bit before then, we're in the era where, when you look at this chart, open AI was untouchable for well over a year. And, I mean, you would remember that time period well of there being very open questions about whether or not AI was going to be competitive, like full stop, whether or not open AI would just run away with it, whether we would have a few frontier labs and no one else would really be able to do anything other than consume their APIs. I am quite happy overall that the world that we have ended up in is one where... Multi-model. Absolutely. And strictly more competitive every quarter over the last few years. Yeah. This year has been insane. Yeah.George [00:24:42]: You can see it. This chart with everything added is hard to read currently. There's so many dots on it, but I think it reflects a little bit what we felt, like how crazy it's been.swyx [00:24:54]: Why 14 as the default? Is that a manual choice? Because you've got service now in there that are less traditional names. Yeah.George [00:25:01]: It's models that we're kind of highlighting by default in our charts, in our intelligence index. Okay.swyx [00:25:07]: You just have a manually curated list of stuff.George [00:25:10]: Yeah, that's right. But something that I actually don't think every artificial analysis user knows is that you can customize our charts and choose what models are highlighted. Yeah. And so if we take off a few names, it gets a little easier to read.swyx [00:25:25]: Yeah, yeah. A little easier to read. Totally. Yeah. But I love that you can see the all one jump. Look at that. September 2024. And the DeepSeek jump. Yeah.George [00:25:34]: Which got close to OpenAI's leadership. They were so close. I think, yeah, we remember that moment. Around this time last year, actually.Micah [00:25:44]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I agree. Yeah, well, a couple of weeks. It was Boxing Day in New Zealand when DeepSeek v3 came out. And we'd been tracking DeepSeek and a bunch of the other global players that were less known over the second half of 2024 and had run evals on the earlier ones and stuff. I very distinctly remember Boxing Day in New Zealand, because I was with family for Christmas and stuff, running the evals and getting back result by result on DeepSeek v3. So this was the first of their v3 architecture, the 671b MOE.Micah [00:26:19]: And we were very, very impressed. That was the moment where we were sure that DeepSeek was no longer just one of many players, but had jumped up to be a thing. The world really noticed when they followed that up with the RL working on top of v3 and R1 succeeding a few weeks later. But the groundwork for that absolutely was laid with just extremely strong base model, completely open weights that we had as the best open weights model. So, yeah, that's the thing that you really see in the game. But I think that we got a lot of good feedback on Boxing Day. us on Boxing Day last year.George [00:26:48]: Boxing Day is the day after Christmas for those not familiar.George [00:26:54]: I'm from Singapore.swyx [00:26:55]: A lot of us remember Boxing Day for a different reason, for the tsunami that happened. Oh, of course. Yeah, but that was a long time ago. So yeah. So this is the rough pitch of AAQI. Is it A-A-Q-I or A-A-I-I? I-I. Okay. Good memory, though.Micah [00:27:11]: I don't know. I'm not used to it. Once upon a time, we did call it Quality Index, and we would talk about quality, performance, and price, but we changed it to intelligence.George [00:27:20]: There's been a few naming changes. We added hardware benchmarking to the site, and so benchmarks at a kind of system level. And so then we changed our throughput metric to, we now call it output speed, and thenswyx [00:27:32]: throughput makes sense at a system level, so we took that name. Take me through more charts. What should people know? Obviously, the way you look at the site is probably different than how a beginner might look at it.Micah [00:27:42]: Yeah, that's fair. There's a lot of fun stuff to dive into. Maybe so we can hit past all the, like, we have lots and lots of emails and stuff. The interesting ones to talk about today that would be great to bring up are a few of our recent things, I think, that probably not many people will be familiar with yet. So first one of those is our omniscience index. So this one is a little bit different to most of the intelligence evils that we've run. We built it specifically to look at the embedded knowledge in the models and to test hallucination by looking at when the model doesn't know the answer, so not able to get it correct, what's its probability of saying, I don't know, or giving an incorrect answer. So the metric that we use for omniscience goes from negative 100 to positive 100. Because we're simply taking off a point if you give an incorrect answer to the question. We're pretty convinced that this is an example of where it makes most sense to do that, because it's strictly more helpful to say, I don't know, instead of giving a wrong answer to factual knowledge question. And one of our goals is to shift the incentive that evils create for models and the labs creating them to get higher scores. And almost every evil across all of AI up until this point, it's been graded by simple percentage correct as the main metric, the main thing that gets hyped. And so you should take a shot at everything. There's no incentive to say, I don't know. So we did that for this one here.swyx [00:29:22]: I think there's a general field of calibration as well, like the confidence in your answer versus the rightness of the answer. Yeah, we completely agree. Yeah. Yeah.George [00:29:31]: On that. And one reason that we didn't do that is because. Or put that into this index is that we think that the, the way to do that is not to ask the models how confident they are.swyx [00:29:43]: I don't know. Maybe it might be though. You put it like a JSON field, say, say confidence and maybe it spits out something. Yeah. You know, we have done a few evils podcasts over the, over the years. And when we did one with Clementine of hugging face, who maintains the open source leaderboard, and this was one of her top requests, which is some kind of hallucination slash lack of confidence calibration thing. And so, Hey, this is one of them.Micah [00:30:05]: And I mean, like anything that we do, it's not a perfect metric or the whole story of everything that you think about as hallucination. But yeah, it's pretty useful and has some interesting results. Like one of the things that we saw in the hallucination rate is that anthropics Claude models at the, the, the very left-hand side here with the lowest hallucination rates out of the models that we've evaluated amnesty is on. That is an interesting fact. I think it probably correlates with a lot of the previously, not really measured vibes stuff that people like about some of the Claude models. Is the dataset public or what's is it, is there a held out set? There's a hell of a set for this one. So we, we have published a public test set, but we we've only published 10% of it. The reason is that for this one here specifically, it would be very, very easy to like have data contamination because it is just factual knowledge questions. We would. We'll update it at a time to also prevent that, but with yeah, kept most of it held out so that we can keep it reliable for a long time. It leads us to a bunch of really cool things, including breakdown quite granularly by topic. And so we've got some of that disclosed on the website publicly right now, and there's lots more coming in terms of our ability to break out very specific topics. Yeah.swyx [00:31:23]: I would be interested. Let's, let's dwell a little bit on this hallucination one. I noticed that Haiku hallucinates less than Sonnet hallucinates less than Opus. And yeah. Would that be the other way around in a normal capability environments? I don't know. What's, what do you make of that?George [00:31:37]: One interesting aspect is that we've found that there's not really a, not a strong correlation between intelligence and hallucination, right? That's to say that the smarter the models are in a general sense, isn't correlated with their ability to, when they don't know something, say that they don't know. It's interesting that Gemini three pro preview was a big leap over here. Gemini 2.5. Flash and, and, and 2.5 pro, but, and if I add pro quickly here.swyx [00:32:07]: I bet pro's really good. Uh, actually no, I meant, I meant, uh, the GPT pros.George [00:32:12]: Oh yeah.swyx [00:32:13]: Cause GPT pros are rumored. We don't know for a fact that it's like eight runs and then with the LM judge on top. Yeah.George [00:32:20]: So we saw a big jump in, this is accuracy. So this is just percent that they get, uh, correct and Gemini three pro knew a lot more than the other models. And so big jump in accuracy. But relatively no change between the Google Gemini models, between releases. And the hallucination rate. Exactly. And so it's likely due to just kind of different post-training recipe, between the, the Claude models. Yeah.Micah [00:32:45]: Um, there's, there's driven this. Yeah. You can, uh, you can partially blame us and how we define intelligence having until now not defined hallucination as a negative in the way that we think about intelligence.swyx [00:32:56]: And so that's what we're changing. Uh, I know many smart people who are confidently incorrect.George [00:33:02]: Uh, look, look at that. That, that, that is very humans. Very true. And there's times and a place for that. I think our view is that hallucination rate makes sense in this context where it's around knowledge, but in many cases, people want the models to hallucinate, to have a go. Often that's the case in coding or when you're trying to generate newer ideas. One eval that we added to artificial analysis is, is, is critical point and it's really hard, uh, physics problems. Okay.swyx [00:33:32]: And is it sort of like a human eval type or something different or like a frontier math type?George [00:33:37]: It's not dissimilar to frontier frontier math. So these are kind of research questions that kind of academics in the physics physics world would be able to answer, but models really struggled to answer. So the top score here is not 9%.swyx [00:33:51]: And when the people that, that created this like Minway and, and, and actually off via who was kind of behind sweep and what organization is this? Oh, is this, it's Princeton.George [00:34:01]: Kind of range of academics from, from, uh, different academic institutions, really smart people. They talked about how they turn the models up in terms of the temperature as high temperature as they can, where they're trying to explore kind of new ideas in physics as a, as a thought partner, just because they, they want the models to hallucinate. Um, yeah, sometimes it's something new. Yeah, exactly.swyx [00:34:21]: Um, so not right in every situation, but, um, I think it makes sense, you know, to test hallucination in scenarios where it makes sense. Also, the obvious question is, uh, this is one of. Many that there is there, every lab has a system card that shows some kind of hallucination number, and you've chosen to not, uh, endorse that and you've made your own. And I think that's a, that's a choice. Um, totally in some sense, the rest of artificial analysis is public benchmarks that other people can independently rerun. You provide it as a service here. You have to fight the, well, who are we to, to like do this? And your, your answer is that we have a lot of customers and, you know, but like, I guess, how do you converge the individual?Micah [00:35:08]: I mean, I think, I think for hallucinations specifically, there are a bunch of different things that you might care about reasonably, and that you'd measure quite differently, like we've called this a amnesty and solutionation rate, not trying to declare the, like, it's humanity's last hallucination. You could, uh, you could have some interesting naming conventions and all this stuff. Um, the biggest picture answer to that. It's something that I actually wanted to mention. Just as George was explaining, critical point as well is, so as we go forward, we are building evals internally. We're partnering with academia and partnering with AI companies to build great evals. We have pretty strong views on, in various ways for different parts of the AI stack, where there are things that are not being measured well, or things that developers care about that should be measured more and better. And we intend to be doing that. We're not obsessed necessarily with that. Everything we do, we have to do entirely within our own team. Critical point. As a cool example of where we were a launch partner for it, working with academia, we've got some partnerships coming up with a couple of leading companies. Those ones, obviously we have to be careful with on some of the independent stuff, but with the right disclosure, like we're completely comfortable with that. A lot of the labs have released great data sets in the past that we've used to great success independently. And so it's between all of those techniques, we're going to be releasing more stuff in the future. Cool.swyx [00:36:26]: Let's cover the last couple. And then we'll, I want to talk about your trends analysis stuff, you know? Totally.Micah [00:36:31]: So that actually, I have one like little factoid on omniscience. If you go back up to accuracy on omniscience, an interesting thing about this accuracy metric is that it tracks more closely than anything else that we measure. The total parameter count of models makes a lot of sense intuitively, right? Because this is a knowledge eval. This is the pure knowledge metric. We're not looking at the index and the hallucination rate stuff that we think is much more about how the models are trained. This is just what facts did they recall? And yeah, it tracks parameter count extremely closely. Okay.swyx [00:37:05]: What's the rumored size of GPT-3 Pro? And to be clear, not confirmed for any official source, just rumors. But rumors do fly around. Rumors. I get, I hear all sorts of numbers. I don't know what to trust.Micah [00:37:17]: So if you, if you draw the line on omniscience accuracy versus total parameters, we've got all the open ways models, you can squint and see that likely the leading frontier models right now are quite a lot bigger than the ones that we're seeing right now. And the one trillion parameters that the open weights models cap out at, and the ones that we're looking at here, there's an interesting extra data point that Elon Musk revealed recently about XAI that for three trillion parameters for GROK 3 and 4, 6 trillion for GROK 5, but that's not out yet. Take those together, have a look. You might reasonably form a view that there's a pretty good chance that Gemini 3 Pro is bigger than that, that it could be in the 5 to 10 trillion parameters. To be clear, I have absolutely no idea, but just based on this chart, like that's where you would, you would land if you have a look at it. Yeah.swyx [00:38:07]: And to some extent, I actually kind of discourage people from guessing too much because what does it really matter? Like as long as they can serve it as a sustainable cost, that's about it. Like, yeah, totally.George [00:38:17]: They've also got different incentives in play compared to like open weights models who are thinking to supporting others in self-deployment for the labs who are doing inference at scale. It's I think less about total parameters in many cases. When thinking about inference costs and more around number of active parameters. And so there's a bit of an incentive towards larger sparser models. Agreed.Micah [00:38:38]: Understood. Yeah. Great. I mean, obviously if you're a developer or company using these things, not exactly as you say, it doesn't matter. You should be looking at all the different ways that we measure intelligence. You should be looking at cost to run index number and the different ways of thinking about token efficiency and cost efficiency based on the list prices, because that's all it matters.swyx [00:38:56]: It's not as good for the content creator rumor mill where I can say. Oh, GPT-4 is this small circle. Look at GPT-5 is this big circle. And then there used to be a thing for a while. Yeah.Micah [00:39:07]: But that is like on its own, actually a very interesting one, right? That is it just purely that chances are the last couple of years haven't seen a dramatic scaling up in the total size of these models. And so there's a lot of room to go up properly in total size of the models, especially with the upcoming hardware generations. Yes.swyx [00:39:29]: So, you know. Taking off my shitposting face for a minute. Yes. Yes. At the same time, I do feel like, you know, especially coming back from Europe, people do feel like Ilya is probably right that the paradigm is doesn't have many more orders of magnitude to scale out more. And therefore we need to start exploring at least a different path. GDPVal, I think it's like only like a month or so old. I was also very positive when it first came out. I actually talked to Tejo, who was the lead researcher on that. Oh, cool. And you have your own version.George [00:39:59]: It's a fantastic. It's a fantastic data set. Yeah.swyx [00:40:01]: And maybe it will recap for people who are still out of it. It's like 44 tasks based on some kind of GDP cutoff that's like meant to represent broad white collar work that is not just coding. Yeah.Micah [00:40:12]: Each of the tasks have a whole bunch of detailed instructions, some input files for a lot of them. It's within the 44 is divided into like two hundred and twenty two to five, maybe subtasks that are the level of that we run through the agenda. And yeah, they're really interesting. I will say that it doesn't. It doesn't necessarily capture like all the stuff that people do at work. No avail is perfect is always going to be more things to look at, largely because in order to make the tasks well enough to find that you can run them, they need to only have a handful of input files and very specific instructions for that task. And so I think the easiest way to think about them are that they're like quite hard take home exam tasks that you might do in an interview process.swyx [00:40:56]: Yeah, for listeners, it is not no longer like a long prompt. It is like, well, here's a zip file with like a spreadsheet or a PowerPoint deck or a PDF and go nuts and answer this question.George [00:41:06]: OpenAI released a great data set and they released a good paper which looks at performance across the different web chat bots on the data set. It's a great paper, encourage people to read it. What we've done is taken that data set and turned it into an eval that can be run on any model. So we created a reference agentic harness that can run. Run the models on the data set, and then we developed evaluator approach to compare outputs. That's kind of AI enabled, so it uses Gemini 3 Pro Preview to compare results, which we tested pretty comprehensively to ensure that it's aligned to human preferences. One data point there is that even as an evaluator, Gemini 3 Pro, interestingly, doesn't do actually that well. So that's kind of a good example of what we've done in GDPVal AA.swyx [00:42:01]: Yeah, the thing that you have to watch out for with LLM judge is self-preference that models usually prefer their own output, and in this case, it was not. Totally.Micah [00:42:08]: I think the way that we're thinking about the places where it makes sense to use an LLM as judge approach now, like quite different to some of the early LLM as judge stuff a couple of years ago, because some of that and MTV was a great project that was a good example of some of this a while ago was about judging conversations and like a lot of style type stuff. Here, we've got the task that the grader and grading model is doing is quite different to the task of taking the test. When you're taking the test, you've got all of the agentic tools you're working with, the code interpreter and web search, the file system to go through many, many turns to try to create the documents. Then on the other side, when we're grading it, we're running it through a pipeline to extract visual and text versions of the files and be able to provide that to Gemini, and we're providing the criteria for the task and getting it to pick which one more effectively meets the criteria of the task. Yeah. So we've got the task out of two potential outcomes. It turns out that we proved that it's just very, very good at getting that right, matched with human preference a lot of the time, because I think it's got the raw intelligence, but it's combined with the correct representation of the outputs, the fact that the outputs were created with an agentic task that is quite different to the way the grading model works, and we're comparing it against criteria, not just kind of zero shot trying to ask the model to pick which one is better.swyx [00:43:26]: Got it. Why is this an ELO? And not a percentage, like GDP-VAL?George [00:43:31]: So the outputs look like documents, and there's video outputs or audio outputs from some of the tasks. It has to make a video? Yeah, for some of the tasks. Some of the tasks.swyx [00:43:43]: What task is that?George [00:43:45]: I mean, it's in the data set. Like be a YouTuber? It's a marketing video.Micah [00:43:49]: Oh, wow. What? Like model has to go find clips on the internet and try to put it together. The models are not that good at doing that one, for now, to be clear. It's pretty hard to do that with a code editor. I mean, the computer stuff doesn't work quite well enough and so on and so on, but yeah.George [00:44:02]: And so there's no kind of ground truth, necessarily, to compare against, to work out percentage correct. It's hard to come up with correct or incorrect there. And so it's on a relative basis. And so we use an ELO approach to compare outputs from each of the models between the task.swyx [00:44:23]: You know what you should do? You should pay a contractor, a human, to do the same task. And then give it an ELO and then so you have, you have human there. It's just, I think what's helpful about GDPVal, the OpenAI one, is that 50% is meant to be normal human and maybe Domain Expert is higher than that, but 50% was the bar for like, well, if you've crossed 50, you are superhuman. Yeah.Micah [00:44:47]: So we like, haven't grounded this score in that exactly. I agree that it can be helpful, but we wanted to generalize this to a very large number. It's one of the reasons that presenting it as ELO is quite helpful and allows us to add models and it'll stay relevant for quite a long time. I also think it, it can be tricky looking at these exact tasks compared to the human performance, because the way that you would go about it as a human is quite different to how the models would go about it. Yeah.swyx [00:45:15]: I also liked that you included Lama 4 Maverick in there. Is that like just one last, like...Micah [00:45:20]: Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, it is the, it is the best model released by Meta. And... So it makes it into the homepage default set, still for now.George [00:45:31]: Other inclusion that's quite interesting is we also ran it across the latest versions of the web chatbots. And so we have...swyx [00:45:39]: Oh, that's right.George [00:45:40]: Oh, sorry.swyx [00:45:41]: I, yeah, I completely missed that. Okay.George [00:45:43]: No, not at all. So that, which has a checkered pattern. So that is their harness, not yours, is what you're saying. Exactly. And what's really interesting is that if you compare, for instance, Claude 4.5 Opus using the Claude web chatbot, it performs worse than the model in our agentic harness. And so in every case, the model performs better in our agentic harness than its web chatbot counterpart, the harness that they created.swyx [00:46:13]: Oh, my backwards explanation for that would be that, well, it's meant for consumer use cases and here you're pushing it for something.Micah [00:46:19]: The constraints are different and the amount of freedom that you can give the model is different. Also, you like have a cost goal. We let the models work as long as they want, basically. Yeah. Do you copy paste manually into the chatbot? Yeah. Yeah. That's, that was how we got the chatbot reference. We're not going to be keeping those updated at like quite the same scale as hundreds of models.swyx [00:46:38]: Well, so I don't know, talk to a browser base. They'll, they'll automate it for you. You know, like I have thought about like, well, we should turn these chatbot versions into an API because they are legitimately different agents in themselves. Yes. Right. Yeah.Micah [00:46:53]: And that's grown a huge amount of the last year, right? Like the tools. The tools that are available have actually diverged in my opinion, a fair bit across the major chatbot apps and the amount of data sources that you can connect them to have gone up a lot, meaning that your experience and the way you're using the model is more different than ever.swyx [00:47:10]: What tools and what data connections come to mind when you say what's interesting, what's notable work that people have done?Micah [00:47:15]: Oh, okay. So my favorite example on this is that until very recently, I would argue that it was basically impossible to get an LLM to draft an email for me in any useful way. Because most times that you're sending an email, you're not just writing something for the sake of writing it. Chances are context required is a whole bunch of historical emails. Maybe it's notes that you've made, maybe it's meeting notes, maybe it's, um, pulling something from your, um, any of like wherever you at work store stuff. So for me, like Google drive, one drive, um, in our super base databases, if we need to do some analysis or some data or something, preferably model can be plugged into all of those things and can go do some useful work based on it. The things that like I find most impressive currently that I am somewhat surprised work really well in late 2025, uh, that I can have models use super base MCP to query read only, of course, run a whole bunch of SQL queries to do pretty significant data analysis. And. And make charts and stuff and can read my Gmail and my notion. And okay. You actually use that. That's good. That's, that's, that's good. Is that a cloud thing? To various degrees of order, but chat GPD and Claude right now, I would say that this stuff like barely works in fairness right now. Like.George [00:48:33]: Because people are actually going to try this after they hear it. If you get an email from Micah, odds are it wasn't written by a chatbot.Micah [00:48:38]: So, yeah, I think it is true that I have never actually sent anyone an email drafted by a chatbot. Yet.swyx [00:48:46]: Um, and so you can, you can feel it right. And yeah, this time, this time next year, we'll come back and see where it's going. Totally. Um, super base shout out another famous Kiwi. Uh, I don't know if you've, you've any conversations with him about anything in particular on AI building and AI infra.George [00:49:03]: We have had, uh, Twitter DMS, um, with, with him because we're quite big, uh, super base users and power users. And we probably do some things more manually than we should in. In, in super base support line because you're, you're a little bit being super friendly. One extra, um, point regarding, um, GDP Val AA is that on the basis of the overperformance of the models compared to the chatbots turns out, we realized that, oh, like our reference harness that we built actually white works quite well on like gen generalist agentic tasks. This proves it in a sense. And so the agent harness is very. Minimalist. I think it follows some of the ideas that are in Claude code and we, all that we give it is context management capabilities, a web search, web browsing, uh, tool, uh, code execution, uh, environment. Anything else?Micah [00:50:02]: I mean, we can equip it with more tools, but like by default, yeah, that's it. We, we, we give it for GDP, a tool to, uh, view an image specifically, um, because the models, you know, can just use a terminal to pull stuff in text form into context. But to pull visual stuff into context, we had to give them a custom tool, but yeah, exactly. Um, you, you can explain an expert. No.George [00:50:21]: So it's, it, we turned out that we created a good generalist agentic harness. And so we, um, released that on, on GitHub yesterday. It's called stirrup. So if people want to check it out and, and it's a great, um, you know, base for, you know, generalist, uh, building a generalist agent for more specific tasks.Micah [00:50:39]: I'd say the best way to use it is get clone and then have your favorite coding. Agent make changes to it, to do whatever you want, because it's not that many lines of code and the coding agents can work with it. Super well.swyx [00:50:51]: Well, that's nice for the community to explore and share and hack on it. I think maybe in, in, in other similar environments, the terminal bench guys have done, uh, sort of the Harbor. Uh, and so it's, it's a, it's a bundle of, well, we need our minimal harness, which for them is terminus and we also need the RL environments or Docker deployment thing to, to run independently. So I don't know if you've looked at it. I don't know if you've looked at the harbor at all, is that, is that like a, a standard that people want to adopt?George [00:51:19]: Yeah, we've looked at it from a evals perspective and we love terminal bench and, and host benchmarks of, of, of terminal mention on artificial analysis. Um, we've looked at it from a, from a coding agent perspective, but could see it being a great, um, basis for any kind of agents. I think where we're getting to is that these models have gotten smart enough. They've gotten better, better tools that they can perform better when just given a minimalist. Set of tools and, and let them run, let the model control the, the agentic workflow rather than using another framework that's a bit more built out that tries to dictate the, dictate the flow. Awesome.swyx [00:51:56]: Let's cover the openness index and then let's go into the report stuff. Uh, so that's the, that's the last of the proprietary art numbers, I guess. I don't know how you sort of classify all these. Yeah.Micah [00:52:07]: Or call it, call it, let's call it the last of like the, the three new things that we're talking about from like the last few weeks. Um, cause I mean, there's a, we do a mix of stuff that. Where we're using open source, where we open source and what we do and, um, proprietary stuff that we don't always open source, like long context reasoning data set last year, we did open source. Um, and then all of the work on performance benchmarks across the site, some of them, we looking to open source, but some of them, like we're constantly iterating on and so on and so on and so on. So there's a huge mix, I would say, just of like stuff that is open source and not across the side. So that's a LCR for people. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.swyx [00:52:41]: Uh, but let's, let's, let's talk about open.Micah [00:52:42]: Let's talk about openness index. This. Here is call it like a new way to think about how open models are. We, for a long time, have tracked where the models are open weights and what the licenses on them are. And that's like pretty useful. That tells you what you're allowed to do with the weights of a model, but there is this whole other dimension to how open models are. That is pretty important that we haven't tracked until now. And that's how much is disclosed about how it was made. So transparency about data, pre-training data and post-training data. And whether you're allowed to use that data and transparency about methodology and training code. So basically, those are the components. We bring them together to score an openness index for models so that you can in one place get this full picture of how open models are.swyx [00:53:32]: I feel like I've seen a couple other people try to do this, but they're not maintained. I do think this does matter. I don't know what the numbers mean apart from is there a max number? Is this out of 20?George [00:53:44]: It's out of 18 currently, and so we've got an openness index page, but essentially these are points, you get points for being more open across these different categories and the maximum you can achieve is 18. So AI2 with their extremely open OMO3 32B think model is the leader in a sense.swyx [00:54:04]: It's hooking face.George [00:54:05]: Oh, with their smaller model. It's coming soon. I think we need to run, we need to get the intelligence benchmarks right to get it on the site.swyx [00:54:12]: You can't have it open in the next. We can not include hooking face. We love hooking face. We'll have that, we'll have that up very soon. I mean, you know, the refined web and all that stuff. It's, it's amazing. Or is it called fine web? Fine web. Fine web.Micah [00:54:23]: Yeah, yeah, no, totally. Yep. One of the reasons this is cool, right, is that if you're trying to understand the holistic picture of the models and what you can do with all the stuff the company's contributing, this gives you that picture. And so we are going to keep it up to date alongside all the models that we do intelligence index on, on the site. And it's just an extra view to understand.swyx [00:54:43]: Can you scroll down to this? The, the, the, the trade-offs chart. Yeah, yeah. That one. Yeah. This, this really matters, right? Obviously, because you can b

Contact Welcomed HereMOD concepts have no shelf-life or expiration date.  Since our focus is principled and always happening now - each episode will always reflect the moving fluid nature of current events. Sobriety provides a level of existing clarity previously denied. Looking honestly at mental problems is difficult while obsessed with acting out of order, against any favorable interests, by opposing instinct's nature that naturally guides us to survive and thrive.Emotional sobriety is sane living. Compulsive behaviors never favor our interests. A good example is imagining addiction is an escape into safety by denying actual Reality.  Sick thoughts imagine stellar results while fertilizing the degradation and reckless abandon of pitiful consequences.  We Know We Know. We Are Aware We Are Aware. We Are as We Are. Reality is unlimited and never changes. The idea that how and what we think creates reality suggests otherwise. Acting on backward thoughts leads to behaviors that are out of order reflecting a reversal of our natural fortune that are accurately called disorders. Anxious, nervous and systemic disorders reflect this impossible attempt to reverse Nature's Law and Order and our Universe's Essence. Dis-ease is the lack of ease created and maintained by such twisted mental acrobatics. Stress and Anxiety inhibit healing and compound and degrade health. Mentality is a bodily function. Mental disease is a physcial ailment. For as long as it is misdiagnosed - any cure or treatment will perpetuate its contagion. Principles affirm Our Indivisible nature. Sharing Principles confirms our natural indivisibility. Inspiration is natural while desperation, depression, degradation and acting oblivious to what is obvious is an unnatural choice to oppose reality which is impossible to accomplish though we are free to try. Ignoring what is happening, acting as though it shouldn't be or isn't happening, produces the unintelligible gibberish of ignorance - not reality.

Contact Welcomed HereResponsibility is the ability to respond - responsibly. Accountablity is the ability to count. Accounting done correctly adds up. Feeling like you don't count is the natural byproduct of thoughts that don't add up since they have no substantive basis. ALL Reality has substance. While substance is largely invisible it is also indivisible - which means it has no parts or pieces to separate or divide so cannot be in conflict. To think we can be separate from It is to think divisively about it and feel disconnected and alone is the natural byproduct of feeling unsubstantive thoughts. Essence is essential and not optional.  Indivisbility cannot be added to, reduced or fractured. IT IS Perfect Peace Silent and Still Presence. We now this or could not notice conflicts or disturbances. Splitting thougths into fractional concepts with a denominator of zero means no numerator can not be big enought to amount to anyting. When enough is never enough the mental impossbility of turning thoughts into reality has been induced. We do not struggle with Reality, Truth or LIfe. Our mentality struggles with how and what we think of them - along with the imagined self we can think we've become. Addiction is not impossible - but to continue the same thinking while wishfully hoping more insanity will resolve the problem only addes fuel to the fire of more obsessive thinking imagining nothing else can ever be done. If we didn't know better there would be nothing we could do.  We Know We Know. We Are Aware We Are Aware. We Are as We Are. Reality is unlimited and never changes. The idea that how and what we think creates reality suggests otherwise. Acting on backward thoughts leads to behaviors that are out of order reflecting a reversal of our natural fortune that are accurately called disorders. Anxious, nervous and systemic disorders reflect this impossible attempt to reverse Nature's Law and Order and our Universe's Essence. Dis-ease is the lack of ease created and maintained by such twisted mental acrobatics. Stress and Anxiety inhibit healing and compound and degrade health. Mentality is a bodily function. Mental disease is a physcial ailment. For as long as it is misdiagnosed - any cure or treatment will perpetuate its contagion. Principles affirm Our Indivisible nature. Sharing Principles confirms our natural indivisibility. Inspiration is natural while desperation, depression, degradation and acting oblivious to what is obvious is an unnatural choice to oppose reality which is impossible to accomplish though we are free to try. Ignoring what is happening, acting as though it shouldn't be or isn't happening, produces the unintelligible gibberish of ignorance - not reality.

Contact Welcomed HereWhen we are accountable things add up so we feel like we count. Absolute Reality has no reservations or exceptions. We can think IT does and feel isolated and alone while nursing baseless thoughts.  We do not need to understand any story we make-up to recognize the disturbing effects caused by sick thinking. The idea that facing Reality is complicated is not true. Trying to avoid it for any length of time is infinitely more complicated than facing it honestly. We Know We Know and are also readily and obviously aware even while and when we think and this say we aren't. We are free to choose to think whatever and however we think so when we create a sense of condemnation and doom it is the sum of how and what we are thinking about things that is felt. Practicing this is talking about how and what you think openly and honestly as thought.  Taking seriously the idea that thoughts are reality turns the idea of expressing what we are thinking openly into a seeming external threat - that does not feel funny no matter how silly the premise. Honesty does not require we be right. Honesty includes talking openly about whatever we are thinking about right or wrong.  To chronically think thoughts are right and never apply them is like sitting in the couch all day wondering how to be productive.  Thinking we ever keep these ideas to our seeming self becomes another secret we think we can keep even while we secrete blood, sweat and anxious, pitiful tears. Self-pity reflects the pitiful useless self we think is all we are. Usefulness is determined by how well we read our body language. Our functional literacy determines the degree to which we utilize our full functional capacity.  If our limited thoughts are imagine to be Reality the potential to rehabilitated and redeem any useless thinking will, by choice, be limited as evidence our wrong thoughts are right. We can create a mess and then blame the mess for the scarcity of our situation.  This only makes sense in induced insanity. To impose doubt where there is none is something we are free to do - but it doesn't make any sense beyond the limited ideas we make believe are our own seeming reality and truth.  The basis of Existence is Absolute and thus so is Nature. The nature of Nature is our nature; no exceptions, no other options, no doubts since there is no question. All the questionable doubts we encounters are not mysteries of the universe but a mystery as to why we don't bother to simply mention them.  We Know We Know. We Are Aware We Are Aware. We Are as We Are. Reality is unlimited and never changes. The idea that how and what we think creates reality suggests otherwise. Acting on backward thoughts leads to behaviors that are out of order reflecting a reversal of our natural fortune that are accurately called disorders. Anxious, nervous and systemic disorders reflect this impossible attempt to reverse Nature's Law and Order and our Universe's Essence. Dis-ease is the lack of ease created and maintained by such twisted mental acrobatics. Stress and Anxiety inhibit healing and compound and degrade health. Mentality is a bodily function. Mental disease is a physcial ailment. For as long as it is misdiagnosed - any cure or treatment will perpetuate its contagion. Principles affirm Our Indivisible nature. Sharing Principles confirms our natural indivisibility. Inspiration is natural while desperation, depression, degradation and acting oblivious to what is obvious is an unnatural choice to oppose reality which is impossible to accomplish though we are free to try. Ignoring what is happening, acting as though it shouldn't be or isn't happening, produces the unintelligible gibberish of ignorance - not reality.

When dealing with an eternal God who knows everything within time & outside of it, it is integral that we approach Him based on our faith in His omniscience. The happenings in our lives are not a mystery to Him. In prayers, our connection and every syllable of our lips to Him should be from the depths of our heart and not vain paganistic repetitions and noises that assume His ignorance of us and our situation. In His omniscient love, He prepares routes, paths, things & people to assist us in navigating our losses into a better place of His perfect will. Be Radiant!  

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux challenges the existence of God from a philosophical perspective, drawing on decades of study. He defines existence and categorizes entities into three groups: those that exist, those that may exist without proof, and self-contradictory entities. Focusing on the latter, the lecture critiques God's traits of omniscience and omnipotence, posing logical dilemmas. Additionally, the relationship between consciousness and the brain is explored. Ultimately, he concludes that God's existence fails to meet criteria of evidence and logic, inviting reflection on the implications of believing in a non-existent entity.SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux explores a challenging listener question about the relationship between God's omnipotence, omniscience, and the concept of free will. He begins by defining omniscience as God's complete knowledge of all events throughout time, which raises questions about human autonomy in light of divine foreknowledge. We delve into thought experiments on free will, highlighting the interplay between subconscious decision-making and moral agency. Using relatable examples, he argues that true free will exists in our ability to make moral choices aligned with our values. Transitioning to the divine perspective, he discusses how God's perfect nature means He cannot change His mind, ultimately reconciling the complexities of divine knowledge and human freedom. This exploration reveals important implications for our understanding of moral responsibility and the nature of God.The listener's question:"I believe you said (forgive me if you haven't) that God can't change his mind, therefore he is not omnipotent. This doesn't make sense to my personal experience. Why would I even want to change my mind if I were omniscient? Why would anyone want to change their mind if omniscient?"SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Experiencing the fringes of God's power through the gifts of the Spirit leads us to quantify the totality of God's power based on our limited experiences. God's Omnipotency goes beyond that, the creation of the Universe & the Earth in terms of size, matter and days taken might also not suffice in quantifying it. He can make dead things come back to life and calls those things that are not as if they were. His Omnipotence sets the basis of our trust in His ability and promises. Be blessed as you listen to this sermon.

Filling all things… Journey to Reality Chapter Five: Sacramental Thinking St John 14: 1-7.  Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit).  We understand the “way” to be the road to perfection, advancing in order step by step through the words of righteousness and the illumination of knowledge, always yearning for that which lies ahead and straining toward the last mile, until we reach that blessed end, the knowledge of God, with which the Lord blesses those who believe in him. For truly our Lord is a good way, a straight road with no confusing forks or turns, leading us directly to the Father. For “no one comes to the Father,” he says, “except through me.” Such is our way up to God through his Son. ON THE HOLY SPIRIT 8.18.  “Modern, westernized people tend to think about the world from the starting point of physicality.  The physical world, as we would say, is the primary reality… It is the objective, measurable world on which we can all agree.”  Page 50 of 142. The assumption of materialists is that if a thing cannot be measured, then it is unprovable, a matter of opinion, AND of lesser importance. The natural world is everyone's baseline.  Religious or spiritual people have an added category, that of the “supernatural,” but as long as we operate in the material paradigm, these are the things that BY DEFINITION cannot be measured and are thus kind of optional.  Belief then becomes a way to stand up and assert that there are some things that are important that cannot be measured directly.  “I believe…” is our assertion that there is a supernatural reality and that it is well-ordered and that there are supernatural outcomes that should matter to us: ·      Forgiveness of sins ·      Sacramental marriage (vs. an agreement or contract) ·      Eternal life When we talk about religion, it is often in materialist terms. ·      What good is it (for health, family, society)? ·      What does it cost in terms of time and money? ·      Does its system make sense?  E.g. Juridical vs. Therapeutic vs. Holistic Healing But this worldview can only take us so far.  It “misses the mark” when it comes to understanding the world and how it works. An irony:  the materialist world may allow us to see things objectively, but not truly.  I am playing with words here, but it points to the difficulty. Objectivity refers to the quality of being unbiased and fair, making decisions based solely on facts rather than personal feelings or beliefs. It is often considered essential in fields like science and journalism to ensure accurate and impartial reporting or analysis. Objects have attributes that can be measured.  As a social scientist, I was taught that we have a poor understanding of something if we cannot put a number to it and that if we took enough measurements, we could explain everything.  Omniscience – or godhood – then is a matter of having enough data and the computing power to run the numbers.  Omnipotence involves the ability to manipulate everything towards a desired outcome.  This is no longer just the stuff of science fiction.  This is another one of those areas where claims are being made for technology that should not be made.  We can rightly question double-predestination, but what will keep us from doing the same thing as we grow in material understanding and power? A step in the right direction is to recognize that there is a moral dimension to the world.  But the problem is that it cannot be measured.  Outcomes can be measured, but their values can only be asserted.  This is why both secular philosophers like Nichze and religious ones like C.S. Lewis and Fr. Seraphim Rose claim that this kind of worldview leads to nihilism and the assertion of will.  Religious and spiritual people who believe in the supernatural will then say that God (or spirit, or Arche) is the solution to this problem.  Again, this gets us heading in a good direction, but it usually keeps within the materialist worldview.  Again, which system makes sense, agrees with what I prefer, has the best agape meal, and so on. But it really is strange to come at God in this manner.  All we are doing is taking the “God of the Gaps” concept and applying to morality and value.  This is like looking at the world through a two-dimensional, black and white filter. We can do better.  Let's see how our ancestors did it. They did not see the natural and supernatural as separate.  It was just “the world.” Some things were visible and some things were invisible.  Just as we cannot see radiation, atoms, and gravity know them to be part of reality, so it was with our ancestors for the invisible things.  “This idea that the physical and the spiritual are not seperable has a few important implications.  If we say that the physical and the spiritual have to go together, then what we're really saying is that there is a spiritual quality to everything physical, and a physical quality to everything spiritual.  This means, among other things, that physical objects and actions can have intrinsic meaning.” (Page 53 of 142) The example of two bisecting lines.  A Cross.  There is a story behind it, and that gives it subjective meaning, but there is more to it.  The things that are described in that story create meaning.  The cross is part of something primal and real it has “cosmic significance” (ibid).  And this is true regardless of whether people recognize it as such (example of vampires). Another way of describing this older view is as “enchanted” (vs. disenchanted).  Another way is that we are part of a grand story.  Stories are excellent at conveying meaning.  This is why some stories are said to be true even though they are fiction.  This is complete nonsense to the materialist mind. What about objectivity?  Isn't this view biased?  Isn't it subjective? It certainly is biased.  But it is only subjective because our perception of the world is incomplete and often wrong, and we really do assert our wills to create and share meaning.  We have to go beyond thinking about things primarily as either objective – meaning things that can be measured, or subjective – meaning things that cannot.  A refresher on objective vs. subjective: Pizza. ·      Objectively, it has bread, sauce, and topics of a certain type and consistency and spices that affect the olfactory system in certain measurable ways.  This is seen as what the pizza IS. ·      Subjectively, we prefer certain kinds of bread, sauce, topics, and spices.  This is our opinion about the pizza.  ·      We can argue about what belongs on a pizza or how it should be prepared, but it's easy to come to an agreement on what the pizza actually is.  The problem with this kind of a dichotomy is that it turns value and meaning into a matter of opinion and not only does that lead to disaster – it doesn't describe the way the world really is. Why disaster? Disagreeing about pizza can lead to arguments and bringing home a pizza one person sees as valuable and another doesn't may lead to temper tantrums; but what if the thing being described is something like human life or someone else's freedom?  Why is it wrong? Because everything has intrinsic value.  And this is because it has being through it's connection to the source of value – the Arche.' Personal Knowledge Another step in getting us to where we need to go is to look at knowledge that is gained personally, from the inside.  But even in relationships, we miss the mark.  Vices and virtues affect how well we can know things and people.  An angry person is going to notice – and even create – things in people and their behaviors that stoke their anger.  Humility allows the person to be open to the truth.  Vice clouds our vision. “The practice of virtue is, therefore, an essential element in seeking knowledge and the ultimate truth of things.  Why?  Because reality is participatory.  Or, to put it more simply, if you're a bad person, you're also going to be a bad friend.  If you're jealous, resentful, petty, or arrogant, your going to have a hard time building a relationship with anyone to the extent that those impulses control your life.  To have better relationships, you have to be a better person.  And if Truth itself is a Person, you're only going to be able to know Truth to the extent that you're able to have a relationship with Him.” (Page 61 of 142) In summary: the physical and spiritual world are inseparable.  This gives everything meaning.  We learn that meaning through participation; this involves both intellectual and moral growth.  How can this work?  Tune in next week! Some questions:  ·      How is personal knowledge more than just data? ·      How do we keep from pretending our subjective opinions are illumined? ·      How does anyone know how clean their mirror is or how true their sight is?                    

In today's episode I cover two objections: (1) Divine omniscience is incompatible with human freedom; (2) A Person without a body is impossible. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

Does God change? If we answer yes how can we know whether our salvation is certain? And here, 2000 years into the fray, the question is more pertinent than ever. We have, what, half?!, the Church that thinks God has changed his mind about several critical matters: the mode of salvation, morality, truth, and even whether male and female are essential human qualities. But then if we answer no, God cannot change does that mean God is frozen inside his own self? Is he unmoved by what happens in time, on the earth? With my friend Mark I explore these questions with regard to pertinent Bible passages, theological formulation, philosophical infiltration, and the issue of Christian mission. Just how do we partner with God? With which God are we partnering? Is following Christ a matter of divine fatalism? Is God really causing every single thing that happens in life? Come think and laugh with us! We mean to help you hone your faith.

“O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.” (Psalm 139:1) The marvelous 139th Psalm consists of a prayer by King David to his King, the omniscient, omnipresent, holy Creator God, the King of ... More...

Join Prestonwood Women in welcoming guest teachers to partner with She Reads Truth in studying Attributes of God. Today's guest is Karen Harmon, teaching on God's omnipotence and Omniscience.

Psalm 147 (LSB)Andrew, Isack, and Edwin discuss the omniscience and omnipotence of God and how His numbering and naming the stars connects back to His promises to Abraham.Read the written devo that goes along with this episode by clicking here.    Let us know what you are learning or any questions you have. Email us at TextTalk@ChristiansMeetHere.org.    Join the Facebook community and join the conversation by clicking here. We'd love to meet you. Be a guest among the Christians who meet on Livingston Avenue. Click here to find out more. Michael Eldridge sang all four parts of our theme song. Find more from him by clicking here.   Thanks for talking about the text with us today.________________________________________________If the hyperlinks do not work, copy the following addresses and paste them into the URL bar of your web browser: Daily Written Devo: https://readthebiblemakedisciples.wordpress.com/?p=22495The Christians Who Meet on Livingston Avenue: http://www.christiansmeethere.org/Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/TalkAboutTheTextFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/texttalkMichael Eldridge: https://acapeldridge.com/ 

As we step into 2025, there’s one issue that’s more important than anything else you will encounter this year, and that issue is your eternal destination. Where will you spend eternity—Heaven or Hell? Let Pastor Jack encourage you to settle this issue with certainty in today’s podcast episode. (00:00) God's Omniscience and Predestination(10:06) Flesh vs. God's Children(16:52) The Necessity of Spiritual Rebirth CONNECT WITH PASTOR JACK Get Updates via Text:  https://text.whisp.io/jack-hibbs-podcastWebsite: https://jackhibbs.com/ Instagram: http://bit.ly/2FCyXpO Facebook: https://bit.ly/2WZBWV0 YouTube:  https://bit.ly/437xMHn DAZE OF DECEPTION BOOK:https://jackhibbs.com/daze-of-deception/ Did you know we have a Real Life Network? Sign up for free for more exclusive content:https://bit.ly/3CIP3M99