Simone Weil's weird take on religious belief

It's not an argument at all; it's an assertion, and a demonstrably false one. People dismiss experiences they've had all the time.

She can claim that the experience she had was one which cannot be denied, and anybody who had such an experience would be converted. But it's absolutely as valid to say otherwise, that the experience was convincing to her only because she has a low threshold for being convinced, and that every other person who had an identical experience would simply brush it off. There is exactly as much evidence for both propositions... zero.

Accepting her claim also does interesting (and potentially damaging) things to theism. For one, if we assume that god can and does grant experiences to people which are of such a nature that is literally impossible to deny them, then how does that square with god's alleged love of free will? god is literally compelling people to become theists in ways that are impossible for them to resist!

And the obvious question is - why doesn't everybody have these experiences? We're to believe that god compels some people to become believers by granting them these undeniable experiences... but others are just left to muddle through? What sense does that make? Especially if one is of the belief that god denies these people their experiences all their lives, and then casts them into hell at the end of it all for not believing in him - when he's the one that refused to grant them the undeniable experiences that he granted to other people which would have turned them into believers!

It's absolutely nonsensical.