P2 doesn't establish C. You don't need to directly observe an infinite entity in order to observe evidence that points toward one. We very much routinely infer unobserved things from their observable effects. P3 is also an unsupported universal claim. Showing that some finite things have finite explanations doesn't establish that every possible phenomenon has a finite explanation. P4 confuses parsimony with truth. A finite explanation is only preferable if it actually explains the evidence. If an infinite being is necessary to explain some phenomenon, then rejecting that explanation merely because it involves an infinite property isn't parsimony it's more so an assumption against the hypothesis