“…if the Gospel hypothesis were true, we ought to expect the same consequences as would arise from any loving father’s desire to be involved in his children’s lives…”

Your challenge in trying to show that the god of the gospels is not evident in the real world will be threefold:

a) the god of the gospels has evolved over time. In the OT, god is tied to the tribes of Israel and their land. He is jealous, vengeful, and capricious. By the time we get to the NT, god has become a “heavenly father”. Which god are you refuting? The petty, small diety of Moses, or the heavenly father of many mansions described by Jesus? Christian apologists can simply move the goal posts on you. They can claim that god of the gospels is not simply a father, but is a terrible judge, or a fierce king.

b) Apologists will claim that gospel accounts of god are analogies. Analogies are translations – they are clumsy human attempts to grapple with the enormity of a totally alien “other”. Therefore, the gospel description of god as a father will never be identical to our notion of a natural human father. They will claim that you are reducing god to a single analogy and then taking a swat at it. God, afterall, is so much more than simply a father.

c) god has chosen to be hidden at this point in human history. Apologists will claim that the time of direct revelations is over until the end times, or that god is waiting to establish a new covenant with his people – or some such other variant on the theme of hiddeness.

Your goal is ambitious Deacon. The ability of this meme to morph and adapt to rational inquiry is legendary. I await this series with great interest.

For the record, I think one could, in theory, disprove Christianity. All you would have to do is show that Jesus Christ is a false prophet. Your methodology seems fine. The problem is that your Gospel hypothesis has only a tangential relationship to Christianity. For example, you imply that Christians should not be harmed while the Gospels make it clear that Christians may be persecuted and killed. If this Gospel hypothesis of yours were proven false it would be of no consequence to Christians.

Also, you seem to be intentionally trying to drive as big a wedge as possible between the Myth hypothesis and the Gospel hypothesis. If the Gospel hypothesis is true, as understood by Christians, revelations and divine interventions would still be rare and thus human thought would still be of importance in Christianity. Human thought is even necessary to judge and interpret revelation and divine interventions. The standard of Christian doctrine is Jesus Christ himself. There is an objective, historical truth regarding what Jesus said and did even if we can’t always agree on what that is. Thus, the consequences of the Myth hypothesis you have mentioned are not terribly different from the consequences of the Gospel hypothesis as understood by Christians.