Should someone who claims to be all-knowing be taken at face value?

Sure, that's true, absolutely but you can be 99.9% sure of something like there not being a Magic Sky God who makes people out of dirt.

I cannot prove to you that there isn't a giant teacup circling the sun (we could never see it and probably not detect it), so I cannot deny it 100% but I'm pretty sure there isn't. Same with "god".

Any human who professes to be 'all-knowing' is a fool and I would not take anything he said seriously.

No, I ate the fruit of knowledge, and know all like God, because I am God. The universe is eternal, everything that can possibly happen does, forever. All is one.

Wow, man. Put down the weed. You've circled that logic enough that it stopped being logic.

Do you have someone fix your car for you? Have you gone more than once? We go more than once, because we trust the mechanic is capable of fixing the car. We stop going, when we find out the mechanic isn't.

So far? God's proven omnipotent and omniscient. Your logic wasn't.

<<Wouldn't an intellectually honest person acknowledge that they could never REALLY be sure if they're omniscient, since they could not know that they don't know something? >>

By very definition, an Omniscient being WOULD know that it is omniscient, because by very definition it would know ALL that there is to be known.

Let's put it a different way -- We only know some things or know that we don't know others because we have potential. We can potentially move from a lack of knowledge to actual knowledge.

We posess both potentiality and actuality.

By definition, the concept of God lacks potential. He is PURE Existence -- he is made up of only actuality.

He can not potentially know something. He can not potentially be in 1 place, as opposed to another.

So your question seems to try and create an alternate definition of 'omniscience' to mean something that THINKS it is, but may not be. OR to create an alternate definition of God.

It would be like saying: "Maybe an Octogon isn't really an octogon, because octogons have more than 8 sides. "

You're using the words, but inserting your own definition, which then violates the meaning of the word.

Like a "square circle" or a "triangle rectangle" - your essentially creating non-sensical definitions.

______________

A being which is NOT omniscient is, by definition NOT God.

_______________

NOW.. if you want to merely cast doubt, say.. Well maybe there is this demigod, that is CLAIMING to be thee God, who really isn't. But 'appears to us' to be the actual God --- Well then you can do this.

But casting this sorta doubt, really gets us intellectually no where. You're essentially at an intellectual dead-end. You can't really argue ANYTHING - you're just making bare assertions.

If we want to debate the existence of God - we have to show that it is illogical, NOT merely cast dispersions and create alternate demigods.

Make Sense?

So in closing I'd simply answer...

By sheer definition of what GOD is: He is PURE actuality and lacks potential. So he can't potentially know anything, therefore he must know EVERYTHING - because he is pure actuality/existence.

This then shifts the argument towards a discussion about potential and actuality and the definition of God. Which is a topic for another question.

It is only god who is omniscient for the knowledge of every things...

Yes. Smart people know that they don't know everything.

Maybe ;)