> I'm guessing you've already made up your mind that you don't agree with me. But I've learned that it's important to defer belief and judgement until after having made a confirmation. So I'll answer as if you might be interested in a sincere discussion.
I don't agree with the specific claims you've articulated as they are articulated, but that's not an immutable fact, merely a contingent one. But I think the discussion has value, even if we disagree. And I think we might agree on the substance more than is apparent through the disagreement on the particular expression.
> What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened
Taking, for the sake of argument, this is true (I don't think that it has been justified, however), it doesn't follow that a teaching from another source might not be useful in the course of enlightenment, only that the source couldn't know that the teaching was useful.
> and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment.
Assuming that enlightenment comes from practicing something that can be reduced to a teaching, if any being achieves enlightenment, they must do so on the basis of a practice they engaged in prior to achieving enlightenment, which they could also have provided to others as a teaching at that time. Even if they could not have known, for whatever definition of knowledge you are using, that it was a practice that would lead to enlightenment.
So, the specific argument you make here is unconvincing.
In general, and in wider scope, your broader argument seems to conflate the essential truth of enlightenment with practices which are useful along the path from where people are to enlightenment, and to conflate the inability to fully and accurately relate the former with an inability to relate anything about the latter. I do not disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate what enlightenment essentially is. I do disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate practices which are useful to those seeking enlightenment on that path. (I would also disagree with the claim that such useful information is the exclusive domain of any one religion.)
And I'd also say that many of the observations you make are things that many religions already teach, and which are among the teachings that they teach which are useful to enlightenment. (Its also true that while they are in the body of teachings of many religions, they are also teachings that are also often de-emphasized by religious authorities, and that that is a real problem. But that fact, too, is often among the teachings of the same religions.)
You're right that there exist some flaws in my method of explanation and attempt to form a convincing argument for you. I'd like to thank you as I've learned something from you. However I would like to propose that any logical unsufficiencies in my explanatory efforts thus far do not at all implicitely indicate any diminishment of degree of truthfulness of my words. In plain words, I didn't try to tell others what I do not actually know, and I maintain that all my claims here are true and that anyone can verify these truths by proof that exists in reality. As a consequence of these qualities of what I've said, no proof will be found to contradict my claims, and yet my claims, to my knowledge, should be quite easily theoretically "falsifiable". My question for you is whether you would have an interest in the truth and try to verify these matters or maintain your existing knowledge and level of understanding.
I don't agree with the specific claims you've articulated as they are articulated, but that's not an immutable fact, merely a contingent one. But I think the discussion has value, even if we disagree. And I think we might agree on the substance more than is apparent through the disagreement on the particular expression.
> What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened
Taking, for the sake of argument, this is true (I don't think that it has been justified, however), it doesn't follow that a teaching from another source might not be useful in the course of enlightenment, only that the source couldn't know that the teaching was useful.
> and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment.
Assuming that enlightenment comes from practicing something that can be reduced to a teaching, if any being achieves enlightenment, they must do so on the basis of a practice they engaged in prior to achieving enlightenment, which they could also have provided to others as a teaching at that time. Even if they could not have known, for whatever definition of knowledge you are using, that it was a practice that would lead to enlightenment.
So, the specific argument you make here is unconvincing.
In general, and in wider scope, your broader argument seems to conflate the essential truth of enlightenment with practices which are useful along the path from where people are to enlightenment, and to conflate the inability to fully and accurately relate the former with an inability to relate anything about the latter. I do not disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate what enlightenment essentially is. I do disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate practices which are useful to those seeking enlightenment on that path. (I would also disagree with the claim that such useful information is the exclusive domain of any one religion.)
And I'd also say that many of the observations you make are things that many religions already teach, and which are among the teachings that they teach which are useful to enlightenment. (Its also true that while they are in the body of teachings of many religions, they are also teachings that are also often de-emphasized by religious authorities, and that that is a real problem. But that fact, too, is often among the teachings of the same religions.)