An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone

My opponent has already made this argument in the previous round, but I’ll address it again with a different approach in the case my first address was vague. “What you call semantics I call common sense regarding the purpose and meaning of words we use in the English language”. Semantics is still semantics and I call it that because that’s what it is, regardless of what subjective personal interpretation you put on it. “All definition's wording implies that the tester is the one doing the determining and the one with the intent of discoverty. What reasning do I have to the support this? Well the fact that there are already words to describe an act that is done to increase someone's knowledge, means that test does not fall into that category”. My opponent has used the word “implies”, and then goes on to argue for this implication with an argument that I have already refuted. Therefore, I am going to go through my refutation once more but with a different approach: Test: "Pronunciation: /tɛst/ noun 1. A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something. .. " Now I will demonstrate why God would design a test for someone: God sets up tests for his people so that they may “establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something (e. g. their faith in God)”. Yes, there is no need for God to establish the quality, performance… however, because we are not omnipotent, how else would we determine our faith? Are we to argue that we can determine our faith more accurately than a god whom is omnipotent? The procedure still establishes the quality, performance… it’s just that the person (God) who sets up the test does not need to establish anything. So, conclusively, my argument remains consistent with the definition of “test” and my opponent is trying to enforce inaccurate parameters on the word with a restricted, personal interpretation. “"his whole counter-argument is based upon the definition of “test”, which I have refuted just now. "” Well one must know the definition of a word before they can use it properly so it's important to know the definition. My whole argument is actually based on the logical reasons for cunducting a test, the defininition is actually one part of a larger logical argument. Since you still haven't used the word "test" properly then I will provide more definitions. ” I addressed your counter-argument with this statement (which you made in round three), not your “argument”. Then, you proceed to refer to the definition of “test”, which only strengthens my point that your counter-argument revolves around the definition of the word “test”. "This implies the the person running the procedure is the one intending to estabolish new knowledge of quality, performance, or reliability of something” How did you conclude this hidden implication exists? Why are we not to assume that it also implied that the definition requires the reader to translate it into Hebrew, before attempting to bash their computer screen in whilst reciting the Hebrew translation? If we are to be honest here, you have attached your own personal interpretation of the word “test” in this argument to suit your agenda. “An all knowing being would have no logical reason to run a procedure with the purpose of estabolishing new knowledge about anything, considering he would already have a infinite knowledge”. This is the last component of your counter-argument; the idea that what I’m arguing is teaching/revealing, rather than testing. I’ll now explain why my argument is not one involving teaching/revealing: Test: "Pronunciation: /tɛst/ noun 1. A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something. .. " 2. "teach   [teech] Show IPA verb, taught, teach•ing, noun verb (used with object) 1. to impart knowledge of or skill in;" 1. God designs a test in order for us to “establish the quality” of our beliefs – this is a test by the definition of “test”. This is also consistent with your reference: “In terms of human beings, testing tells what level of knowledge or skill has been acquired”. This is, by all objective definitions, a test. 2. God designs a test in order for us to establish the nature of belief –this is not a test, but teaching as it is “to impart knowledge of or skill”. The rest of my opponent’s argument is, as he says, “rehashed”, and is all of which I have already refuted above. In summary, my opponent has a personal interpretation of the word “test” which, and as shown, this undermines his entire argument. The definition of the word “test” was his only contention for argument and I have refuted his claims to the definition on a number of occasions. It is logically possible for God to test ‘someone’ as the ramifications of the word “test” allow this so long as ‘someone’ determines the test results, which is an acceptable use of the word “test”. My opponent’s counter-argument(s) were undermined by a limited understanding of the word’s potential use. So, I have proven that my argument provides a logical reason as to why God would have a logical reason to test anyone.