The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
xxxallyssarulezxxx
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
xxxallyssarulezxxx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,650 times Debate No: 21203
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (7)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I will use logical arguments to make a case against an omniscient God having reason to run tests of any kind.

First round for acceptance.
xxxallyssarulezxxx

Con

I accept.

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".

As con, I will attempt to prove there is a possible, logical explanation for God having to test anyone.

I wish my opponent good luck in the following debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

First we must look at what defines omniscience, and what defines tests to see if the two 
are in fact compatiable.

Omniscient:

"om·nis·cient   [om-nish-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Omniscience
First published Mon Feb 1, 2010
Omniscience is the property of having complete or maximal knowledge."
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Test:

"
test1 [test] Show IPA
noun


1. The means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness ofanything is determined; a means of trial."


http://dictionary.reference.com...




"test 1 (test)

n.

1. A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial:"








Logical argument:

1) An all knowing God would have infinite knowledge of future outomes
2) A test is something which has a sole purpose of determining an outcome you weren't already knowledgeble of
3) An all knowing God would have no use for something which has a sole purpose of determining an outcome he wasn't
already knowledgable of, because he knows all outcomes already.



Conclusion:


An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone


Sources (rehashed):


http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
xxxallyssarulezxxx

Con


I thank my opponent for a concise, straight-to-the-point argument.


I agree with my opponent's argument to some extent. An omniscient God is all knowing and it would seem that he would have logical reason to test us for his own benefit (as he already knows the outcome). However, there may be logical reasons outside of conducting tests so as to know the conclusion. So, my premise is now that God has a logical reason for testing humans outside of conducting tests so as to know the conclusion.



For this argument, I must stress that the nature of this argument assumes the existence of an omniscient god, hence the resolution (so I don't have to prove that an omniscient God exists). I’m going to reference The Bible’s God as he is an omniscient god. The Biblical God is omniscient (King David talking to God): “Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You” (Psalm 139:12) So, what is His purpose for testing us?



C1: God wants us to experience victory


God does not test to increase his own knowledge; rather, God tests us to increase our own knowledge and understanding: 1 THESSALONIANS 2:4“. . . even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts”. He wants us to know that by following his commands in the times he tests us, we can achieve victory (over the devil/sin). To elaborate, victory could not be achieved if there was no test (i.e. possible outcomes could not eventuate if there is only a solitary outcome). Without testing us, we would not be able to achieve victory. Therefore, it is a necessity, logically, for God to test us to achieve victory.



C2: God has plans for us


Again, God tests us so for our own benefit, not to increase his own knowledge: “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declared the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (Jeremiah 29:11). These plans are a requirement for us to “prosper” as God is all knowing, and therefore would know what is best for us. Conclusively, it is logically necessary for God to test us if it is within his plans (which are what is best for us).



So, God has logical reasons outside of increasing his knowledge; he tests us so that we may know certain things as we are not omniscient. Furthermore, His methods are the best as He is omniscient and has our best interests in mind (Jeremiah 29:11).


Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting my opponent's arguments:

1) "So, my premise is now that God has a logical reason for testing humans outside of conducting tests so as to know the conclusion."

The problem with this, is there is no reason to conduct a test outside of conducting it for the pupose of knowing the conclusion.

Examples:


a) The only reason to test someone's trust would be to know if they trusted you or not
b) If you knew 100% that a person trusted you, you would have no logical reason to test them

a) The only reason to test someone's skill at Baseball, would be if you didn't know how good they were at baseball
b) If you know exactly (infinitely) how good someone was as baseball, there would be no logical reason to test them



2) "God does not test to increase his own knowledge; rather, God tests us to increase our own knowledge and understanding"

The problem with this argument, is tests are to see how well a person can use/ remember/ apply the knowledge they already have. There is no logic in giving someone a test to increase their knowledge.

Teaching/ Revealing vs Testing

a) If person X acts with the purpose of increasing Y's knowledge, then person X is teaching/ Revealing.
b) If person X acts with the purpose of finding out mow much knowledge person Y has or how person Y applies that knowledge, then person X is testing.

Example:

You can't give somebody an math exam (test) with the purpose of increasing their knowledge, I mean you could do it, but it wouldn't be logical (which is the context of this debate). The exam's only logical purpose would be to test how they apply the knowledge they they already have, not to give them more knowledge because that would be teaching/ revealing.

Logical steps:

1. Person X acts in a way with a purpose of increases the knowledge of person Y = Teaching/ Revealing/ Giving clues
2. Person X acts in a way with the purpose of gaining knowledge about how well person Y can apply the knowledge they already have = Testing


Conclusion:

1) It would not be logical to test someone with the purpose of increasing their knowledge (this would be Teaching/ Revealing/ Giving clues) , it's only logical to test someone with the purpose of finding out how they can apply the knowledge they already previously have obtained.

2) As it stands in this debate, an omniccient God would have no logical reason to test anyone.





xxxallyssarulezxxx

Con


My opponent’s counter-argument revolves around semantics, which is a pity. The argument suggests that my arguments, demonstrating what tests would be logical to conduct, are in fact “teachings/revealing”. Based on the definition of test provided by my opponent: “The means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial”, there are semantics issues that are apparent.



Firstly, the definition does not specify who is determining the nature of the results; the definition does not specify whether the tester or tested are determining the results. Relative to this definition, I could say I conducted a test in order for the tested to determine something.



Secondly, my opponent’s counter-argument revolves around the presumption that the tester (God) is the one determining the nature of his test results (determining what humans do in response to his challenges): “The problem with this, is there is no reason to conduct a test outside of conducting it for the pupose of knowing the conclusion”. As demonstrated above, this undermines his argument as the definition of “test” has become incorrectly parsimonious.



Lastly, his whole counter-argument is based upon the definition of “test”, which I have refuted just now. Hence, my opponent has not addressed my argument yet and thus, I extend my original argument to the next round.



I urge my opponent to use the definition he has provided for this argument, not the inaccurate one that has plagued his counter-argument argument.


Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

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/
noun
1. 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.


"DEFINITION
In 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 are
teaching/ revealing something by definition. If you hand someone a piece of paper with the intent of finding out how
well 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 confidence
and 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 well
that person can apply the knowledge they already have. My opponent's claim that definitions of test
doesn'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 knowledge
2. 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 of
discovery, also there are definitions which specify that the tester is the one who logically must be the one wishing
to 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 of
3) 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






xxxallyssarulezxxx

Con

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. 1. A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something..."
  2. 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.

I wish to thank my opponent for his time, and I also wish to thank you for reading our arguments.

Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MikeyMike 5 years ago
MikeyMike
Judging from Pro's other debate about the KCA, there's a pattern forming in which he tends to redefine a word as how he sees fit. He does it with the word "Cause" in the KCA debate, and does it here with the word "test". Fatal error on his part. Congrats to Con.
Posted by Alarbi 5 years ago
Alarbi
So all angels prostrated except Lucifer (Satan), he refused and showed his arrogance but at the same time exposed his innermost personality to all others and betrayed himself. This was the purpose of the TEST. God could have simply exposed him directly but then it won't be ABSOLUTELY EQUITABLE in the eyes of all other creatures, they don't know beforehand…

Anyway, the outcome of this debate shows that people behave the way football teams fans behave: "Our team is the best" even if they present miserable results! CON wined only because the majority of voters were Christians or Catholics like her (profiles). A fair result to me would be 0—0.
Posted by Alarbi 5 years ago
Alarbi
Staying in the human realm, if you know everything beforehand, it is clear that you don't need to test anybody, because logically, it is trivial to engage in a test whose outcome is already known to you.

In the case of God, the situation is different. First we have to know that God does not err or forget and He is the Truthful and the Equitable. His testing is not for Him but for all other Creatures to see because He is the only one in the universe Who knows everything beforehand. He reserved this capacity for Himself, which mean, there is no Spirits (high ranking creatures) or Angels (pure creatures created from light) or djinns (creatures created from pure energy, fire) or Human (creatures created from matter endorsed with progressive intelligence) or animals (created from matter endorsed with instinctive intelligence) who possesses this capacity to know beforehand.

I give here one example: How can God show and PROVE to a group of creatures that one of them is caressing the idea (in his mind) of not obeying Him anymore? The three revealed Books (Thora-Gospel-Quran) provide the answer: He made Adam from clay which is supposed to be "inferior" to light or energy from which they were made and ordered them in a TEST to prostrate to Adam. All prostrated, except one who refused and surprised all angels, his new name is now Satan. So, the TEST was not for God since He knew it beforehand but for the Angels. Since God is the absolute Equitability itself, the TEST was designed to PROVE to any other creature the reality of an outcome and that He knew it beforehand.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
So God can reveal reveal knowledge in the form of a test, but the human is actually testing themselves
God does the revealing, the humans do the testing.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
A test's purpose is to determine an outcome you didn't already have knowledge of, so it's logical for a human to test themselves with the resources this omniscient God provided them, but it's not logical for the God himself to run the test.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Like I said, I could see an omniscient God providing a test, and the humans test themselves without knowing it. However, an omniscient God running tests on humans to increase their knowledge makes absolutely no sense. I'm still shocked I'm losing this debate, I'm not a sore loser, I'm just baffled that people actually think increasing someone's knowledge can be considered testing, when increasing someone's knowledge is called teaching/ revealing.
Posted by kyelmarsh 5 years ago
kyelmarsh
Hello all for voted on the side of the con want to know something. Did you do so because you share the same faith or do you truly believe that her argument makes sense?

In full honesty even as a non religions person I can say I see something this debate. There is no LOGICAL reason for a OMNISCIENT GOD to TEST anybody if he already knows the result of the test. And I think as stated by the pro or maybe not but somebody does not take a test by somebody else to test themselves. If they would do that they would give themselves the test. However if I were a religious person I would still side with pro however if he said there was no reason for such a god to TEACH anyone then I would go with con however he did not say TEACH he said TEST.

Please note I put all words you should look at closely in bold print.
Posted by Alarbi 5 years ago
Alarbi
I guess, I have to bring a bit more details into this debate. First, from the title, we must admit that this debate has nothing scientific; it is a disguised religious debate where the PRO is an atheist and the CON is a catholic. And to my knowledge, both are travelling with the wrong luggage. The main reason behind people adopting false beliefs and losing their own soul is a limited knowledge about God. It is clear from the Thora (Old Testament) The Gospel (New Testament) and the Quran (Last Testament) that when the first human couple, Adam and Eve were put on earth, they believed one hundred per cent in God and followed His commandments. Later on, when Adam's family grew, they were well aware of the consequences of deviating from God's path – namely eternal hell, ETERNAL FURNACE!
According to the Last Testament, humans were put on earth not to lead a happy and good life but mainly to be tested because they believed they could do without God in a first life and deserved Hell (all humans) but God was merciful (which even surprised the angels) and wanted to give them a second chance. So He created death which did not exist before, created this world only for testing us whether we will now FREELY believe in Him and follow His commands or follow, as before what we want.

Time passed by and humans all over the globe lost the true knowledge of their Creator; they became so ignorant they started producing concepts of God having absolutely nothing to do with the reality of God. This can be seen in the fact that they conceived God as being just like them, which is the concept the Bible presents: "God created man after his own image; in the image of God he created Man", which in my understanding, is the greatest insult to God ever made, a great calamity (I believe in all non-corrupted holly Books). How can a weak creature on earth, a bug, be compared to the One Who has control over everything in the infinite universes He created?
Posted by Alarbi 5 years ago
Alarbi
In 325 AD in Nice, the Church introduced another catastrophe, the general belief that Jesus is the son of God and that he is also God! This illustrates a widespread ignorance of humans about their Creator, their inability to imagine God Who cannot be compared to anything in existence. The number of people accepting and following this catastrophe represent one fifth of humanity.
Within the beliefs of the Far East, Hinduism and Buddhism, Adam's reality of God as the only One Master of the universe Who creates by saying "BE!" is totally lost. In Hinduism, God could not be conceived as able to create something from nothing, therefore everything is God and there is no distinction between Him and His creation. Every living being has a soul called Atman and this is actually God named Brahman; in other words a human is divine because his soul is Brahman. This Brahman has a human-like body and the Atmans that are generated from the head of Brahman give birth to a higher cast called the Brahmins, whereas the lowest caste, the Sudras, come from "God's feet" (!!!). If a person does good in his actual life and dies, he will be reborn in a higher cast or class and this cycle is repeated until he reaches the highest level of the Brahmins, when he is reunited with Brahman. This process of reunification is called Moksha, and in Buddhism it is called Nirvana. In other words, a human is no more a creature made by God; he/she ultimately becomes God! Simply a calamity! Every attribute of Brahman manifests as different gods resulting in the richest polytheism on the globe. An ignorance of the real God can give birth to such fairy tale explanations which are baseless. The same can be said about the debaters, they are trying to make us believe that we can use plain language to prove something about God that nobody can fathom, The supreme Engineer, Creator and Controller of the universe and of everything that it contains including ourselves.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"we test ourselves, he just provides the questions"

Exactly, now this is would be logical to say. However saying that an all knowing God would run tests on human beings to increase our knowledge makes no sense.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by trippledubs 5 years ago
trippledubs
Rational_Thinker9119xxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm convinced there could be a reason after hearing Con
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Rational_Thinker9119xxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is correct that God would not need conduct tests to increase his own knowledge. Con counters by explaining that God is not the only one involved in these tests. The believers being tested have personal insight to gain during such tests. Whatever God's reasons, really, he would be validated in his testing given that he is accepted as omniscient in this debate. Pro's later arguments do not address the fact that both the test giver and taker may gain knowledge through testing.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Rational_Thinker9119xxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: BOP was on Pro. Pro had to prove that God would have no logical reason to test anyone. Con provided a logical reason. Sources to Pro though
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Rational_Thinker9119xxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Detailed RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Skynet 5 years ago
Skynet
Rational_Thinker9119xxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has presented this in a light I haven't seen before, and did a very good job. Pro has a difficult time seeing things from a different perspective, opposing or objective, and therefore cannot comprehend his opponent's argument.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Rational_Thinker9119xxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter
Vote Placed by ThePhilosophersDeduction 5 years ago
ThePhilosophersDeduction
Rational_Thinker9119xxxallyssarulezxxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote goes to Con on the point of making humans knowledgeable. Perfectly logical argument, and there's no way Pro could have easily refuted it as he tried. Pro was also in the state of being rude in one of his points, calling his arguments common sense.