Well, I'd like to continue the head-scratching fun.
Famine
You know everything. God knows everything. Right?
You know what God is thinking, God knows what you are thinking. Therefore God is you and you are God - after all, what defines us better than our thoughts?
I'd say that defining someone/something by its thoughts is good enough. One could argue that individuals should be defined by their hair color, but that'd just be silly.
But, then you get the definition of "thoughts." Personally, I'd split your argument into two categories of "thinking." First would be a passive category of simply knowing. A second would be an active category of thinking. Going back to defining people by their thoughts, I'd say that the active version of "thinking" is a better definition of a person than the passive version of "knowing."
So, you (as an omniscient being) can know what god is thinking. But, you can be actively thinking about something else. In this case, you can be thinking about the anatomy of a bird while god is thinking about Charles Dickens. Both you and god are aware of what the other is thinking, but only passively. Actively, the two of you are thinking about different things. Therefore, you are different beings.
Now...that bit of argument up there is based purely off definition, which can easily end up skewed. So, I don't know if that argument got anywhere, really.
Famine
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle comes into play here, along with a little bit of other quantum physics.
You can know where something IS, or where it is GOING, but you can't know both. Quantum physics tells us that a particle cannot be in two places at the same time. So by pinning down God you know where he is and that he can't be placed somewhere else at the same time - or you can know where he's going to be in a couple of seconds and that he can't be placed anywhere else at the same time, denying the omnipresent.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my fuzzy recollection tells me that something CAN be in two places at the same time, even ALL places at the same time. In order to do so, it must have either infinite mass or no mass, thus giving infinite volume. So, our god can either have infinite mass or none whatsoever.
If god had infinite mass, then you'd have god all over your shirt, and you wouldn't be able to clean it because your washing machine would be all gunked up with god. In fact, you wouldn't be able to walk to your washer because of all the god that's in the way. So god probably dosen't have infinite mass.
So, god can have no mass. If this is so, you get the question of whether you need mass to exist. One could argue that god's pure energy, but then you get the thing about energy consisting of mass also. So, does god exist in some other medium other than mass? I don't think we can know. But this would be the only way to make him omnipresent. Or, we could use edit the omnipresent part out of our definition of god (your personal choice, I guess).
Famine
Indeed it IS a finite number, but you do not know WHERE the electrons are. They don't orbit as you see in school textbooks. In fact, truth be told, they don't orbit AT ALL. Electrons exist in probability fields. They are more likely to be close to the nucleus they are associated with than they are to be at infinity, but they have a small probability of being at infinity. This means that, at any given moment, any electron associated with any nucleus could be at infinity. This means that atoms - nucleus + electrons - all have infinite size and are all in constant contact with each other.
Ya, I know about clouds and probability, maybe I should have said that electrons simply "exist" around the nucleus, instead of "orbit."
So, an "atom" has infinite size, but only by defining it as electrons + nucleus. This means that all atoms overlap. But, if I'm made of atoms, does that mean that I exist everywhere, and therefore am god, along with all other things that consist of atoms? That would mean that everything with mass has infinite volume, and therefore is godly.
Personally, I'd get rid of the "atom" thing entirely and simply go down to electrons and the nucleus, as these still have finite mass and volume. For the moment, I'm even going to ignore the nucleus completely, and stick to electrons.
So, the electrons have a probability of being anywhere. But we know for a fact that they are somewhere. So, the electron on the hydrogen atom sitting on my desk can be sitting on your desk, in your room, miles away. But then, it cannot be sitting next to the carbon atom that's next to it on my desk. It has a probability of being there in a second, but then it won't be on your desk anymore. So, as far as I understand it, electrons can be anywhere, but they can't exist everywhere at one moment.
Famine
Due to Christianity's definition of "God", one cannot physically prove God's existence, as to do so would be to disprove God's existence. The converse is ALSO true.
This certainly seems to be the case. But, in my humble opinion, definitions suck. Anyone can go on re-writing them all day, and we're not going to get anywhere. But it does make for some interesting conversation.
Famine
Anyone not currently scratching their heads hasn't fully read this post. I certainly am.
I think it's time to break out the dandruff shampoo.
And...as for the idea of the tsunami, It's kinda sad to think of the idea that God caused it. If god is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient (and exists), then there isn't any way to see it other than god made a tsunami, not just allowed it to happen. Looking at it this way, the only way to defend a "good" god is to say that by making a tsunami, something good happened. So, just because things were absolute crap here, things must have been really, really good somewhere else. I guess that the general response would be to say that the good thing happened to those 250,000 people, but who knows? The flip side of the argument would be that god doesn't exist, and things were just crap here; there isn't any order to the ups and downs of daily life. Just a thought.
j/k I'm just glad that Douglas Adams wasn't around 2000 years ago... we'd all probably be worshipping the number 42 to this day! 
... oh the joys of the internet... I particularly like the 'Testimonials' page... although it's quite disturbing... here's an example:
to the Atoms, the only thing that can really be omnipresent.
