"A being can only knows what it knows, correct? And a being does not know what it does not know, correct? So far, everything is fine. A being’s scope of knowledge is limited to what it knows. A being cannot know what lies outside of that scope. Of everything which can be known, there are two categories: Category A, which consists of things a being knows; and category B, which consists of things a being does not know. This makes sense, yes?
You may be thinking: In relation to an omniscient being, category B does not exist. There is nothing which it does not know. That’s not the point right now. The point is: A being cannot know what it does not know. A being cannot know what’s in Category B or if anything is in Category B at all. This applies to all beings. You may say it doesn’t apply to an omniscient being, but keep reading."
The argument falls when you you make the argument that assumes he doesn't know x at all. This goes against the very definition omniscient. There is no argument to assume he doesn't know anything and seems to be very circular coming from your mind and not actual reality of the definition.
If I knew everything it would be incoherent to say that I don't know something.
It's like saying is possible to eat 5 if you can't eat 5 then you can't eat everything.
"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen" ~ max
