As said, if one wants to draw a magical binary divide between "knowledge" and "claims of knowledge" there is literally, absolutely, anything anyone can say about anything.
Indeed.
People can generally say what they like.
The issue, from the outset, and despite your wandering so into irrelevancies, has been about your dismissal of a claim based on not being something that would not actually negate the claim.
You yourself have agreed that it is within the remit of God to be able to pose as an online poster, whether that poster outwardly seems to be able to hold their own in online discussion forums or not.
You yourself have agreed this.
Yet you dismissed Capracus' claim on the basis that God would at least be able to hold his own.
The logic really is simple, yet you can not bring yourself to go "oh, yes, fair point" or some such, admitting the fallacy of your argument/dismissal.
Everything else you've tried to throw up around this is obfuscation.
You try to widen the issue in the hope of diverting it away from that point to a place where you think you can scramble out on another point, and avoid the initial.
And, as already said yet again, feel free to introduce this gem of wisdom of yours into any other topic under discussion and see how far you get.
If you, or anyone, tries to dismiss a claim X on the basis that the claimant should at least be able to do Y, when not doing Y does not invalidate claim X, then expect me or others to call it out as similarly fallacious.
As I have done here.
Anything else you've since tried to introduce is obfuscation and summarily dismissed as irrelevant.
I honestly can't believe it's taken however many posts to explain this to you, and your inability to grasp the illogic of your dismissal seems to border on ignorance or dishonesty, given that you clearly have no intention of doing anything but throwing up walls of wind about you.
So I bid you good day.