An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone

Rebutting my opponent's refutations:"My opponent’s counter-argument revolves around semantics, which is a pity."What you call semantics I call common sense regarding the purpose and meaning of words we use in the English language. "Firstly, the definition does not specify who is determining the nature of the results"Now this is what I call a pity. 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."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.Test: "Pronunciation: /tɛst/noun1. A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something..."http://oxforddictionaries.com... This implies the the person running the procedure is the one intending to estabolish new knowledge of quality, performance, or reliability of something. 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. "DEFINITIONIn general, testing is finding out how well something works. In terms of human beings, testing tells what level of knowledge or skill has been acquired."http://searchindevelopment.techtarget.com...So if I was to test a human being, the only logical reason for this would be to tell what knowledge that human being already aquired. If you were to test a human being with the purpose of increasing their knowledge that would be illoigcal and defeat the purpose of testing in the first place. If God acts with the reason of increasing someone's knowledge and understanding, then what they are doing is not testing, it is teaching/ revealing. This distinction must be made.Teaching and Revealing:"teach   [teech] Show IPA verb, taught, teach·ing, noun verb (used with object)1.to impart knowledge of or skill in;"http://dictionary.reference.com... "re·veal/riˈvēl/Verb: Make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others"http://oxforddictionaries.com... Lets get one thing clear I am not arguing semantics. I'm just letting it be known that words have meaning, and to use the word "test" to describe an action done with the intent of increasing the someone elses knowledge is illogical. If God commits an act with the intent of increasing someone else's knowledge then this would be revealing by definition, it would not be testing. Rehashed example:It is not logical to hand someone a math exam with the purpose of increasing their knowledge. It is logical however, to hand someone a math exam with the reason of seeing how well they can apply the knowledge they already have, and as it stands, this is the only logical reason to run a test on a human being (unless it is a test to determine biological factors of course, but an omniscient God would already know all biological factors).If you hand someone a piece of paper with words on it with the intent of increasing their knowledge, then you areteaching/ revealing something by definition. If you hand someone a piece of paper with the intent of finding out howwell they apply the knowledge they already have, then that is a test.Reasoning/ purpose gives words their meaning.Example:If I open my mouth for the purpose of making someone feel bad and lower their confidence, then I am engaging in the act of insulting. However, if I open my mouth for the reason of making someone feel good and raise their confidence, then I am engaging in the act of complimenting.According to my opponent's logic, it would be completely logical to have a purpose of rasing someone's confidenceand to insult this person. Of course this is not logical, because the only reason to insult someone would be if your purpose was to lower that person's confidence.If you take the above concept and apply it within the context of the debate, it becomes clear that it is illogical to test someone with the purpose of increasing their knowledge. It's also impossible, because any act that is done that increases someone else's knowledge is called teaching/ revealing, not testing. Why I believe I have the upper hand in this debate: My opponent's argument that a test can be logically applied to increase someone else's knowledge is illogical. An act which is done to increase knowledge or understanding, is by definition, either revealing or teaching.Testing a human being (besides biologically) can only be done logically if the intent is to find out how wellthat person can apply the knowledge they already have. My opponent's claim that definitions of testdoesn't specify who is trying to gain the knowledge is irrelevant, because by processs of elimination (AKA we already have words to descibe acts that are to increase someone else's knowledge) we can come to the conclusion that the being runing the test must be the one logically with the intent of discovery. Also the definition at the link: http://searchindevelopment.techtarget.com... ...Actually specifies that the tester is the one with the intent of discovery. This also shouldn't even have to be specified,if you know the purpose of testing that is. Re-cap:1. I have shown that it's illogical to "test" someone with the intent of increasing their knowledge2. I have shown that the claim that a definition I provided doesn't specify who is trying to determine new knowledge, is irrelevant. This is because by process of elimination we can determine that the tester is the one with the intent ofdiscovery, also there are definitions which specify that the tester is the one who logically must be the one wishingto gain new knowledge.3. Due to 1 and 2, my Logical Argument: 1) An all knowing God would have infinite knowledge of future outcomes 2) A test is something which has a sole logical purpose of determining an outcome the tester wasn't already knowledgeble of3) An all knowing God would have no use for something which has a sole logical purpose of determining an outcome he wasn't already knowledgable of, because he knows all outcomes already....Still stands, unrefuted with logical reasoning.Conclusion:Since my opponent has failed at providing a logical reason why an all knowing being would conduct a test on a human being and only provided an illogical one, then my position is the stronger one in this debate: An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone