Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I agree with your view that the argument appears to be flawed. I just don't see it as flawed in the area that you do.

I notice you say "It's possible to know what you don't know.", but I don't see this as refuting the argument, because the argument postulates that "It is possible to never know what you don't know." And I imagine that would be true in ordinary circumstances, wouldn't you think so?

take a closer look at his argument. his second premise was:

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.

now how do you disprove someone who says you can't do something? by showing that you can of course. and to show that you can you need only show it possible to do it. the fact that it's only true in some circumstances is irrelevant, because his argument is contingent upon being unable to be aware of what you are unaware of. in order for his argument to stand, he must show it impossible to be aware of what you are unaware and proving it is possible debunks that point and the conclusions built off it.

He could have worded it better, I agree.

But I think the gist of the premise was "You cannot know what you don't know you don't know unless the state of affairs change such that you know what you don't know."