Sorry. I didn’t understand your answer.
I only wanted to know whether you think prophecy is possible with a God defined as a necessary existent.

Why not? The prophet himself understands that God is a necessary existent who does not need a cause in order to exist. For him this is a known fact and not just a hypothesis or a possibility as it is for us.

Why not? Because the prophet has experience of God — after all, he speaks with Him! But according to the cosmological proof, it is impossible to have experience of the object “God.”

Only Moses our rabbi spoke with God; all the others did not.

But it is enough that one person did it to prove that experience of God is possible.

Joseph, are you reading what I’m answering you? It doesn’t seem like it.

Moses our rabbi asked to see God, but God told him, “Man shall not see Me and live.” That is, this kind of experience — seeing God — is impossible. So your whole question collapses from the outset.

I don’t think it collapses. You pointed to one particular kind of experience (seeing God) that is impossible, but it is enough that there be one possible experience (speaking with God) to validate my question.

In that sense everyone has experience with God, since God created the world. And there is nothing special about a prophet.
Then your question applies to everything. How can it be that God created the world? A question to which there is no serious answer, nor could there be one.

All or nothing.

According to your view, the question indeed applies to everything. According to my view — and I think any reasonable person would agree — when you speak with someone, you have experience of that someone; when you see that someone’s products, you do not have experience (in the classic sense of the word) of that someone.

@Michi
I am reading. But I think I didn’t ask correctly, because I don’t see the connection between my question and your answer.
Here is my argument — could you please point out where you disagree?
Claim A: The cosmological proof demonstrates that there is an object called “God.”
Claim B: That object, being a necessary existent = not needing a cause, is beyond human experience.
Claim C: The biblical God is not beyond human experience (because He revealed Himself, and spoke with prophets, etc.)
Conclusion: The cosmological God cannot be the biblical God

You asked correctly, and I already answered. The mistake is in claim B. He does not need a cause, regardless of experience. I am only arguing that for things that are not within our experience, we need not apply the principle of causality. But even things that are within our experience may perhaps be without a cause — for example, if that experience involves only abstract interaction, as with God. In that kind of experience, it is impossible to tell whether we are dealing with someone who is a necessary existent or not.
Think of a situation in which I met a being X and it became clear to me from my experience (the devil knows how) that it is a necessary existent. Is that an oxymoronic statement? Must everything within my experience be contingent? Obviously not.
I’m repeating myself again and again, and I see no point in continuing.

No point in continuing — I understood you correctly.
Thank you very much.