Garden of Eden was a setup...

[Esquilax]

Why does an omniscient being need to test anything if he already knows the outcome? For that matter, why does a god capable of creating anything he wants create a being that requires testing at all, or for which a failure state is even possible?

You're not omniscient, so you don't know why he would do what he does. You're a person of limited knowledge and understanding judging the actions of an omniscient God.

Three thoughts: this is the same appeal to vague possible reasons crap I dismissed earlier. Repeating it doesn't make it any more based in evidence rather than wishful thinking.

Also? Your argument cuts both ways. You're working from exactly the same brain setup that I am, you have exactly the same limits on your knowledge, and you're judging god's actions too. Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable to judge when it agrees with what you want to be true, but when someone else says something that disagrees, they're dismissed and told they cannot judge? I smell a double standard.

Lastly, let's say you're exactly right: it doesn't matter one bit. Would you let a murderer off the hook on the basis of "maybe he has reasons! Who are we to judge his mind?" What if it's just a man accused of murder, who has evidence that would exonerate him but just won't show anyone else because "who are we to judge?" How could we possibly be to blame for following the evidence where it leads, when key evidence (that we're just assuming to exist here, let's not forget you haven't presented a whiff of evidence for your position yet) is being actively hidden from us?

Your position is not only hypocritical and baseless, it misunderstands the very basis of conducting rational investigations to come to conclusions.

I'm not making up excuses at all. In fact, I said that I don't need to defend God's actions. He can do what he wants to do.

That doesn't mean he's right or rational to do it.

He's the one who knows it all. Not me.

Claims to know it all. He's the one who claims to know it all. In reality, omniscience is both unfalsifiable and impossible. So, at best, your god is wrong. At worst, he's a liar.

You ask why an omniscient god would do this or that. Why do you claim to know better than he does?

Why just assume god's position is superior? If he's wrong, he's wrong; you're not going to appeal to authority with me, and just assuming that there's a good reason because you want there to be isn't going to get us anywhere. The factual case as it stands demonstrates that god was acting irrationally and redundantly. Your sole response has just been to assume there's a good reason, and to attack me for daring to question god, as though his authority means anything. But character assassination and presuppositions aren't arguments, they are, as I said before, ad hoc excuses made to avoid answering for obvious inconsistencies.