Possible about the damned (and likely true), but, as I said earlier, it's not the conduct, but the effort; that was Christ's promise. God isn't going to hold a lack of ability against someone, or errors in their doctrinal thesis beyond their ability to understand. I've often said that the intellectual path to Christ is the loneliest. There are a lot of Christians that will simply never be able to plumb the depths of theology (and so the intellectuals are in short supply of company for want to avoid the overabundance of relegating such depths to 'the mysterious'), but if God, then God made the conditions for such limitations. Ignorance is bliss, to an extent.

Parallel to the point about the damned, if they wanted to live their temporal lives apart, why would they want to have an eternity of that which they didn't choose? I am one of few I suppose who doesn't think eternal damnation exists, maybe there is punishment for grievous sin and then annihilation or just annihilation. I don't see the purpose for the eternal part of damnation logically, mathematically (if you properly understand Pascal's wager), or otherwise.

Maybe I was trying to hard to be clever in my last post, so I will rephrase so far as reality being an experiment goes; What possible need or purpose could God (an ontologic fundamental) have to perform such an experiment. If there was outside purpose, then it isn't God we are talking about. (You could get into simulation theories here, which would be quite a tangent, but valid on the premise that reality was made by intermediary and that which we call God is simply that intermediary and the 'real God' is more fundamental and therefore the intermediary had purpose to perform such an experiment, but it doesn't actually change the 'math' enough to make a difference contrary to what some simulation theorists would suggest.)

As far as incomprehensible, I don't think that at all. I can say with 100% confidence that God (ontologic fundamental) exists because there are definitive proofs (differentiability into fundamental regression) that He does, the only alternatives are illogical denial or taking no stance on anything in an equally illogical, solipsistic quagmire (a sad existence). And from those proofs one can start to build out the 'characteristics' of that ontologic fundamental (another deep and large topic on simpliciters could be inserted here). Christ requires a little more 'faith' because of the nature of history, but demands far less on knowledge as requisite.