Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So given
(a) your original premise (P2) You cannot be aware of that which you are [currently] unaware of, even if in principle you could one day become aware of it.
(b) any proposition F that an entity does not know
© noncognizant unawareness ('unknown unknown')

does (P2) say
P2*) "You cannot know that you don't know F"?

I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but when you make arguments like this, I find it important to be precise.

Hah, I don't mind questions, that's why I posted the argument in the first place.

Anyhow, yeah I guess the argument wasn't precise there. What I meant in P2) was that you cannot know there is something of which you do not know of. I didn't mean not something of which you know that you don't know (e.g. the number of atoms composing your body.

But isn't that tautological?