Sentence 1:What doesn't it know? When did I agree it didn't know something?

Second sentence: omniscient would be based facts as it's to know 100 percent truth of everything so he would again by very defintion know his own knowledge is true. "and a being cannot know if His knowledge covers everything that exists" Wait what tell how this is true statement tell how an omniscient being wouldn't know this? This just came out of nowhere without backing. 

"He may think he knows everything"

Why is this a true statement? Is this again a claim you gave no reason why it's true.

5th sentence: By omniscient is the idea of a being or something not having something beyond his knowledge as he knows EVERYTHING so how does this work? If you know everything then it follows there is nothing beyond your knowledge. Again this downplaying the omniscient. There is no beyond peak of knowledge because it would be incoherent for that to be true because both can't be true.

Rest of paragraph one:

He could prove to itself that it's true by the very fact of the defintion of omniscients if omniscient is true and it has it then he knows what knows is true. Again omniscient can't know be fused if he is omniscient being because he is omniscient being. The only way this argument can work if we assume he isn't omniscient which defeats the point of the argument since it was never omniscient being.

Paragraph 2: Already deal with this with my previous replies in this post and others. Again this assumes an omniscient isn't a omniscient being as if he was omniscient being it wouldn't be a question he would know regardless of the question unless it's just incoherent.

Paragraph 3: Omniscient is a state of being  or nature it's not a thought so if the being is an omniscient then it's not a question if it isn't then he wouldn't by defintion. The rest I covered already.

Paragraph 4: ^ that basically. It's a state of being.  It's not thought. it doesn't think it's omniscient it has to be omniscient being. You're confusing something believing there omniscient and being an omniscient being. The arguement is can an omniscient be omniscient which I pointed out is very possible. 

A being can only knows what it knows, correct? And a being does not know what it does not know, correct? A being’s scope of knowledge is limited to what it knows. A being cannot know what lies outside of that scope. Imagine this: 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?

There is at least one thing that no being knows. No being can know if there is something it doesn’t know. Remember what I said about Category A and Category B. Now, let’s apply that to an omniscient being. For everything in Category B, an omniscient being doesn’t know it. You might say, “There’s nothing in Category B!” Perhaps, but listen to this. Even a supposedly 'omniscient' being cannot know if there’s something in category B. Whether or not something truly exists in Category B is irrelevant.I’m just saying a being cannot know if there’s something in Category B – that would mean a being knows what it doesn’t know.

You cannot use what you know to decide what you do not know. It’s impossible. That’s even the case for every being. Remember, you cannot use your knowledge yo justify that your knowledge is infinite. So, It's impossible to even know if Category B even exists. Therefore, a being, even a supposedly omniscient being, can not know if there’s something it does not know. Look at that statement again.  A  being can not know if there’s something it does not know. That means that there IS something that a being does not know. A being cannot know for sure if it is truly omniscient. Thus, it’s impossible for a being to be omniscient in the first place.

Remember, I’m not saying a being doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. The word ‘what’ would require there to be something that a being doesn’t know. I’m not saying that. I’m saying a being doesn’t know if there’s something it doesn’t know. The word ‘if’ refers to the possibility of there being something it doesn’t know. And no being can know what may lie outside of His knowledge.

- - - - - - 

Too Long; Didn't read

How can a being know if it doesn't know something? 

A being's beliefs are only based on His knowledge. But How does he know if His knowledge truly includes everything there is to be known? You cannot use your knowledge to prove that your knowledge is infinite

You know omniscient beings?

It's all a matter of perspective. An omniscient being looking in on our universe from the outside can know all there is to know about our universe. From our perspective it knows all that there is to know. It could even know all there is to know about all universes, but we wouldn't see a difference if we could even understand that level of knowing.

You assume that an omniscient being has a limit to it's ability to know. A truly omniscient being could in fact know all things past, present and future. It could exist in all places at all times. It could be all things and know what it is to be those things.

An all powerful and all knowing being could even create a version of itself that doesn't know all things and then reintegrate to experience not knowing something. Or it could just know that all ready.