Statesboro, GA, USA
No offence, but I think you are much more arbitrarily trying to lock words into stipulations of your own philosophy, Stephanos, than I redefining anything in mine.
As mentioned earlier, omniscience isn't confined to perfection anymore than omnivorous "all-devouring" is confined to eating the whole universe.
Essorant, no offense taken. But I never said that omniscience (by definition) was confined to perfection. Perfection is perhaps a separate aspect of Christian dogma than God's omniscience. For example, Sue may be beautiful and intelligent, but beauty is not intrinsically and theoretically bound to intelligence. Still, regardless of one's Theology, and regardless of whether you think omniscience even possible, omniscience means to know everything, period. You are not merely tweaking the definition a bit or adding a nuance or two, but twisting it tortuously into almost the very opposite of what it has universally been understood to mean for centuries.
If all you mean by omniscience is "partial but widely applicable knowledge", then yes we are omniscient.
But we are not omniscient in the sense of knowing everything exhaustively in the universe. And if that's not what you mean, then will you invent a new word for it please, and quit telling everyone else they are narrow for believing the word has a definite meaning (regardless of the controversy over that meaning, or whether you believe it possible)?
If you believe something only goes so far, then so be it. But that doesn't mean such words, especially words as broad as omni- "all", science "knowledge" and cause "reason" are locked into a narrow stipulation of only how your own belief prefers to limit the words.
So the prefix "omni" in the word omniscient isn't a measure of knowledge, isn't a modifier of the second half of the word, but is really the measure of how far a person can freely elasticize the definition of the word itself. .... rrright.
If you're arguing for an alternate definition of the word, you should be able to cite at least a dictionary reference or two. Otherwise, what you have is a private permutation. Consensus (of some kind) is usually the rule in conversation Essorant. No one on this forum (thus far) concedes your ability to murder language like this, and I'll bet you'll be hard pressed to find anyone anywhere else who does either.