Introduction
This argument builds on the idea that an infinite God, if such a being exists, would be far beyond human comprehension. The point is not to prove that God does not exist, but to show that human beings are in a weak position to recognize God, know God, or distinguish an authentic encounter with God from psychological or paranormal phenomena. If our cognitive limitations and the unreliability of religious experience are taken seriously, then the probability that anyone genuinely knows God becomes extremely low.
The Bible and Qur'an illegitimately overstate things about God.
Argument
Man is finite—limited in time, space, power, and understanding.
If God exists, God is infinite in those same respects.
A finite being cannot comprehend an infinite one. Complete understanding of God is therefore impossible for human beings.
There is a far greater likelihood of encountering psychological, supernatural or paranormal deceptions than God himself.
Since humans cannot comprehend God, they are more likely to mistake an internal projection or a deceptive experience for God.
Human imagination—and possibly paranormal influences—can imitate goodness and divine qualities.
Therefore, experiences that feel “holy,” benevolent, or supernatural cannot be trusted automatically.
It is improbable that anyone genuinely knows or recognizes God.
The human tendency to adore mental images of God rather than an actual divine being suggests that these experiences may be human creations, not divine encounters.
Supporting Reflections
Even if we encounter a seemingly intelligent being, we have no way to determine whether its intelligence is finite or infinite. It can know the entire universe and still have finite intelligence.
If finite → not God.
If infinite → God.
But we cannot make this distinction. We can only assume the nature of the being we experience, and assumption is not knowledge.
Some people argue that if an experience “feels” like God, we should trust it the way we trust ordinary things in life. But everyday trust is grounded in repeated experience and shared evidence. Experiences claimed to be divine are rare, opaque, and lack confirmable patterns. The analogy does not hold.
If God exists and God’s goodness is his central quality, then the closest we could come to knowing him would be through recognizing goodness itself. Religious experiences, miracles, or scriptures cannot replace this, and even moral recognition only gives indirect knowledge. Moreover, goodness is not good because God declares it so—goodness is good in itself. Psychological projection is therefore an enormous risk, for we may simply project our idea of goodness onto what we call God.
Christians often argue that mystics know God and that we should accept their testimony. They compare this to how we trust ordinary testimony in daily life. But mystics frequently contradict one another, belong to very different religions, and many show no sign of significant moral transformation. Their disagreements undermine the reliability of mystical testimony.
Syllogism: The Verification Requirement for Claims of Knowing God
Premise 1:
To claim to know a being as God, one must be able to identify that this being possesses the defining attributes of God.
Premise 2:
One essential defining attribute of God (in any theistic tradition) is superior knowledge, usually described as omniscience or at least vastly greater knowledge than any human.
Premise 3:
A human can only identify a being as possessing superior knowledge if there is reasonable, independent verification that the being truly knows more than the human or more than humanity.
Premise 4:
No alleged encounter with God provides reasonable, independent verification that the encountered being has superior knowledge; all such experiences rely on subjective impressions, unverifiable claims, or circular reasoning.
Conclusion:
Therefore, no one who claims to know God can reasonably verify that the being they claim to know truly possesses superior knowledge, and thus such claims cannot be justified.
Conclusion
Because humans are finite and God—if real—is infinite, we lack the capacity to comprehend or verify God’s nature. Psychological, emotional, and possibly paranormal influences are far more common and far more likely sources of “divine” experiences. Our inability to distinguish genuine encounters from self-generated or deceptive ones makes it improbable that anyone truly knows God. This does not disprove God’s existence, but it strongly challenges the claim that humans have reliable access to him or that religious experiences provide credible evidence of a divine being.