Oh look another witty refutation.
ETA: …though I will concede that there is an excluded middle - specifically the middle where the restauranteur hasn’t given this a lick of thought because he knows that the money is his as soon as it hits the table - and also thinks screw that, he’s still entitled to more of Bob’s money if the restauranteur’s money is taken from the table. Because GIVE ME MONEY, that’s why!
No the owner doesn’t “know” the money ever hit the table in the first place. And I think you know that. Which is why it get’s a big rolleyes from me.
You’re making strawman arguments.
We’re talking about how the fact he takes money when he finds it means that the money was stolen from him when he doesn’t.
Ignore the notion that he’s unaware that the money was there, because the OP asks for the opinion of an omnipotent person, not of the ignorant waitress. Suppose that there ARE security cameras, or that the waitress did see him put the money down before it was stolen.
In those cases, was Bob stolen from, or the restaurant? It can’t be both.