Yeah, sorry about the wrong name.
As for the actual argument, I don't think I conveyed the message well enough. My point is not whether you are right or wrong, neither have I stated my opinion about God's existence. I have just attempted pointing out the void in the argument, the logic itself.

You said, I could be wrong. Sure, anybody can be wrong, but this sentence tells me you missed my point.You forwarded a linear logic to a complex entity, which is God. My point is that linear logic might not work with this entity. Linear thinking doesn't work while describing the supreme being.

Let me give you an example. You must have heard during various "katha-vachan" that Gods used to fight for 1000 years. Would that make sense with our perception of world? How can they live thousands and thousands of years? This means that our scriptures have accepted a super-natural existence of God that cannot be defined or understood by our "limited" though process. So it should be accepted that existence of God, if you were to believe, is more complex than what our perceptions logically say is possible. You have to go beyond your understanding realm. What this means then, that it is possible for God to acknowledge a speck of dust while also monitoring the whole galaxy.

I am not saying you are right or wrong, I am pointing out a flaw in your logic, at least the way I see it. No need to get offended.