The second type of argument commonly advanced against the doctrine of divine omniscience is the problem of experiential knowledge. This is that there appear to be certain kinds of knowledge that can only be acquired by having certain kinds of experiences. One can only learn what it is like to sin by experiencing sin first-hand; one can only learn what it is like to feel malice by experiencing malice first-hand; one can only learn what it is like to be ignorant and powerless by experiencing ignorance and impotence first-hand.

Some of these experiences, such as those listed above, are of a kind that cannot be had by God. God cannot sin, or feel malice, or lack power. If, though, there are facts that can only be known through experience, and God cannot have the experiences by which those facts can be known, then God cannot know those facts. In that case, the doctrine of divine omniscience will have been disproven.

The Problem of Experiential Knowledge

(1) There are some items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience.
(2) Some of the experiences through which items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by God.
(3) If some of the experiences through which items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by God, then there are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by God.
Therefore:
(4) There are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by God.
(5) If there are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by God then it is not the case that God is omniscient.
Therefore:
(6) It is not the case that God is omniscient.