Yet you spell out the prohibition again ...
No, I really don't.
There is nothing "simple" about whimsically discarding "knowledge".
Who says I am disregarding "knowledge"?
Where on earth have you gotten that nugget from???
I am making the distinction between "know God" and knowing sufficient about a claim to be able to dismiss it or not.
You tried, lest you forget, to dismiss Capracus' claim that he was God on the basis that he was not doing something you think God could do.
One does not need to "know God" to know whether or not your dismissal is fallacious.
One merely needs to know your concept of God would be capable of doing the thing Capracus is actually doing.
That quite possibly has nothing to do with "knowing God".
Your concept could be, as far as you are concerned, "knowledge" but for me it is not.
Thus your dismissal can be shown to be fallacious, without the need to "know God".
It's not that difficult, yet you choose to wilfully obfuscate.
The rest of your post, and the past few pages of your obfuscation, clearly stem from your misunderstanding of what was said.
While still being irrelevant to the point at hand, I do suggest you go back and revisit.
And all the while your initial dismissal remains fallacious.
Go figure.