oh_that_guy wrote:I can further elaborate.
When I mentioned testing, it was in reference to Jerril's comment. It was a small attempt to use flawed human logic against the not-human. He wasn't directly asking me to answer that, he was trying to shame God in whatever way he thought that was possible.
Of course we are going to want to test things. Testing how deep water is before you dive in. Testing how hot coffee is before you drink it. Testing how stable a stool is before you sit on it. Testing in this context, using logic to deduce answers for our own interest, is not what I'm referring to.
Testing how an employee fairs for a promotion to your title. Testing your student on all of your teachings. This is the context I was referring to. It is always the one with more knowledge that is in the position to test. When you learn a new language, say you know one broken sentence. How can you test a native speaker of this language? How will you be able to know if they are speaking it correctly? What basis do you have to go off of?
The student can test the teacher to learn off of him. But when the student tests the teacher to simply state to the teacher he is superior than him, that's what doesn't make sense to me. Which testing are you referring to that you say doesn't make sense to you.
Testing is always the former. (using logic to deduce answers for our own interest) The instances you posted are actually all the same.

Testing should never be about superiority, only learning something. Testing is always about learning something that you previously did not know. You may need to learn other things first to provide a basis for the test, like learning a language, but ultimately it is all the same thing. You cannot test someone's language if you don't know it, just like you cannot test coffee if you cannot sense hot or cold. Teachers test students to learn the performance of the student. If the teacher already knows what the student knows, then the test is pointless.