Stating something is wrong, but contributing nothing to the subject matter.
I did "add to the subject matter" by pointing out that the sort of reasoning you employed in your OP was fallacious.
Therefore,
I don't really believe in eternal torment, annihilationism, or universalism. And that is okay, because God will do immeasurably more than we can imagine or think. All the people are probably wrong.
It doesn't follow (non sequitur) that because God can do immeasurably more than we can ask or think, therefore orthodox Christian doctrine is false and "all people are probably wrong." This is like saying, "I've never been to Japan, but I'm sure that a personal, first-hand experience of Japan will be far greater, far beyond what I believe I know about Japan by second-hand means, and, therefore, I'm probably wrong about everything I think I know about Japan." It doesn't follow that because a first-hand experience provides data that second-hand knowledge of that experience cannot that, therefore,
everything one knows by second-hand means is false. When my wife and I traveled to Japan on holiday, all we had researched about the country we found to be true, but in a flat, one-dimensional sort of way. Being in the country
brought alive all our research rather than contradicting it and
added to our knowledge of Japan without dissolving what we already had learned by second-hand means. This, it seems to me, is far more likely to be the case with God and the doctrines (at least, some of them anyway) you mention, than the non sequitur you've proposed.
How do you know that God will do "immeasurably more than we can imagine or think"? Because you read it in the Bible. But the Bible is the same text from which the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is derived. Why are you not placing
Ephesians 3:20-21 under the same cloud of doubt as you are all the verses that indicate eternal conscious torment of the unrepentant wicked? If you're going to apply
Ephesians 3:20-21 the way you are, why should the passage itself be exempt from your application? It is at least inconsistent to place other declarations of Scripture under serious doubt but not the passage you're using to assert (speciously, I think) that doubt. But, of course, if you did so, then your whole line of reasoning collapses. When this is true of a line of reasoning, it is often a cue to its fallaciousness.