OK, good.

So, summarizing your account as I understand it and continuing from there:

• Consider five propositions G1-G5 roughly articulable as follows:
  G1: "there exists a conscious higher Power consistent with the accounts A1 of all believers in Abrahamic religions, though not necessarily identical to that described in any particular account in A1"
  G2: "there exists a conscious higher Power consistent with the accounts A2 of Thomas Monson, where A2 is a subset of A1; any account Antm which is logically inconsistent with A2 is false."
  G3: "there exists a conscious higher Power consistent with the accounts A3 of Sun Myung Moon, where A3 may or may not be a subset of A1; any account Ansmm which is logically inconsistent with A3 is false."
  G4: "there exists a conscious higher Power consistent with the accounts A4 of all believers in any existing religion, Abrahamic or otherwise, though not necessarily identical to that described in any particular account in A4"
  G5: "there exists a conscious higher Power consistent with the accounts A5 of some particular religious tradition R, where A5 is logically inconsistent with A1 and A2."

• 2: On your account there exists evidence, E1, such that a SREoE would, upon evaluating E1, arrive at high confidence in G1. Further, I have access to E1, so if I were an SREoE I would be confident in G1, and if I lack confidence in G1 I am not an SREoE.

• 3: On your account there exists evidence E2 that similarly justifies high confidence in G2, and you have access to E2, though I lack such access.

• 4: If there are two agents X and Y, such that X has confidence that Y is an SREoE and that Y has arrived at high confidence of a proposition based on some evidence, X should also have high confidence in that proposition even without access to that evidence.

Yes? (I'm not trying to pull a fast one here; if the above is significantly mis-stating any of what you meant to agree to, pull the brake cord now.)

And you approached this community seeking evidence that we were SREoEs -- specifically, seeking evidence that we had engaged with E1 in a sufficiently open-minded way, which an SREoE would -- and you have concluded that no, we haven't, and we aren't.
Yes?

And because of that conclusion, you don't reduce your confidence in G1 based on our interactions, because the fact that we haven't concluded G1 from E1 is not compelling evidence that #2 above is false, which it would be if we were SREoEs.
Yes?

So, given all of that, and accepting for the sake of argument that I wish to become an SREoEs, how would you recommend I proceed?

And is that procedure one you would endorse following if, instead of engaging with you, I were instead engaging with someone who claimed (2b) "There exists evidence, E5, such that a SREoE would, upon evaluating E5, arrive at high confidence in G5. Further, Dave has access to E5, so if Dave were an SREoE he would be confident in G5, and if Dave lacks confidence in G5 he is not an SREoE."?