Thanks for the comments. Just a couple of observations. First, the analogy isn’t quite as parallel as it could be. You’d be a lot closer if your love for Jessica were motivated by the fact that you were her father (as well as being a wealthy and talented film producer and director).

But more importantly, the objection you raise would apply to a secondary phase of the relationship which would take place after you had showed up and made a relationship with her possible. At that point, if she decided that she did not want the relationship, then nothing says you (or God) could not respect her wishes. She cannot honestly choose whether she does or does not want that relationship unless and until you do show up in the first place.

Why not?

What this means for us specifically is that there is no point in trying to make predictions based on what God can do, because God can do anything.

It seems there’s an inherent difficulty in predicting God’s behavior, and I also agree that a certain level of absurdity entails claims regarding what God should do, as we clearly don’t have access to all the relevant information. Hence, I feel yours is a naive argument here. Are you saying the logically impossible is possible?

We want to know if the real world does have the consequences we would expect to occur if the Gospel Hypothesis were true…

I want to know why your estimation of what God should do is offered as the only estimation of what God should do, assuming the premises of the Gospel Hypothesis (GH) are correct.

If what God wants is an eternal, loving relationship with each of us, therefore, we ought to expect that He would be participating in that relationship here and now.

This is the same biblically and logically unjustified claim I’ve heard for weeks now.

Like our common experience of the law of gravity, it should be something far too prevalent and inescapable to allow for such doubts and ambiguities.

Sure, if God was like a Kirby vacuum salesman. The Bible says we will all experience God inescapably, tangibly and in person. Therefore, the fact that we currently do not is exactly what we would expect were the Gospel Hypothesis (GH) correct.

God’s picture should be a frequent illustration on the cover of news magazines; interviews with Him ought to appear commonly on news broadcasts (since His perspective would be one of great interest to the rest of us). He ought to be showing up in houses of government, giving speeches to our leaders on how they ought to conduct their policies so as to lead to the well-being and salvation of the greatest number of souls.

Again, you don’t attack the Bible on its own merits. Whatever benefit you derive from this exercise, I imagine the exercise itself will always produce a disconnect with reasonable believers until its flaws are addressed and its justification provided.

Let’s say I love Jessica Alba. She was awesome in Dark Angel, and I’ve followed her career and personal life down to the minutest detail. I know all about her and I desperately want a relationship with her. Yet, if I start showing up to spend time with her without her consent, without her blessing, I will drive her further away. She will (rightfully) call me a stalker and get a restraining order.

Just because God can do something doesn’t mean it is the best course of action.