Yes, I agree that an omniscient being by definition has never not known everything that can be known. It’s what reason requires of its definition. Your mistake is that you think that in order to know what it’s like to be non-omnisicnet it is rationally required/necessary to experience non-omnipresence. Right?
I’ve already given you an answer on how an omniscient being knows what it’s like to be non-omniscent without ever experiencing non-omniscience. You just haven’t addressed it or shown paradoxes within it. I’ll try again:
All that’s needed is all the information that amounts to knowledge plus a receiver to understand it. Agreed? At any point if you disagree, make it clear and I will show you how the alternative is paradoxical/irrational.
The receiver needs to have the right traits to understand that information and my belief is that that which is omnipresent, that which sustains everything and gave everything its creation has the right traits to fully understand the information. Agreed?
For example we have limited hearing in terms of what we can hear, Existence won’t have this issue. It determines all possible sounds/notes/pitches that can be made and is fully aware of what they sound like as they can essentially be translated to pure information and Existence has the right traits/tools/receiver to fully decipher/understand that information.
I’m guessing that you’re saying it does’t have the right traits to understand the information. Right? In which case I’d say that would be paradoxical in the following way: We are entirely dependent on Existence. This entails that we received all our traits from that which ultimately sustains us (Existence). This means that that which sustains us has the right tools/traits/receptacle/reciever (whichever is most accurate) to decipher/understand the information fully. Do you see how the alternative would be paradoxical? How it would ultimately lead to something coming from nothing?
The mechanism of how I can know what it’s like to have less knowledge then I have now aren’t clear as far as I know. Maybe it’s because I’ve experienced being switched off/having gaps in experience/not being able to access all of me (memories etc.), these are all hypothetical possibilities of which we don’t know which is accurate in relation to us, they may all be accurate.
But it may also be because being in possession of these traits means that I can apply negation (just as I can negate my focus from one thing to another, or just simply lessen the potency of my focus (as may be the case with meditation). That which appears to be clear, is this is something I can do. So the outline is clearly there, the mechanism of how this outline is achieved has not yet been established as far as I’m aware but this does not take away from the fact that the outline is clearly there.
God is different to us. The outline is clearly there (as in it must have all the information and all the tools necessary to fully decipher/understand the information) which tools it has to fully understand the information or the mechanism deployed to understand, may be unknown to us, but that certainly doesn’t render the outline paradoxical. Again, it necessarily has all the information and all that’s required to fully understand the information.