Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Esquilax]

... a knowing subject only ever has belief that he knows something. The level of certainty that the subject possesses about a given object does not affect whether or not that object truly exists. You can know something for absolute certain and still be dead wrong.

Following your line of reasoning that which you just stated is merely a belief and no true knowledge is possible. Nihilist.

All I'm saying is that a claim of knowledge doesn't entail actual knowledge: the claim denotes the claimant's level of certainty in his belief, not the actual truth of that belief.

And if your definition of "true knowledge" is absolute certainty, then no, we can't have "true knowledge." We must always be accepting of the possibility that we're wrong, or that additional information might change our ideas. That's called "learning," not nihilism. This "you can't know anything for certain, which means you don't know anything," crap is the domain of the presuppositionalists, but we can have higher degrees of certainty for things for which we have evidence and data in support.

But I don't think the idea that saying you know something doesn't mean it's actually true, is a controversial position.