God is incomprehensibe, therefore the more we associate the knowing of God with revelation, the less we can claim revelations are about God. The paradox is that we can only guage in nature what may be supernatural by how unnatural it appears to be, and the more unnatural, the less comprehensible. The less comprehensible, the less meaningful. The more we expect to have God revealed, the more we become certain He cannot be.
The supernatural entails all things not natural. If there is a set of premises that draw many conclusions, upon what other basis would there be for adopting one belief versus the others? Perhaps that something unique exists in a certain kind of experience? Or, that one just prefers one versus others?
How does one then tie a natural experience to a supernatural source, other than it is truly queerer than normal experiences? And if we are more assured of a supernatural source given the extent or degree of oddity, then surely that has implications for saying God is revealing Himself to humanity. As the more true we hold that idea, the less it can be true! The more sure we are that there is a revelation from God, the less comprehensible it is. If revelation is instead comprehensible then the more so it is, the less supernatural it appears and the more dubious the claim that the source is God.