Talbott's Anticipated Objection to the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" Scenario

This post anticipates what Thomas Talbott might say to my suggestion that he should get behind the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance.

Let's say Talbott replies that given an omniscient God he cannot fathom how God might reveal himself when behind the Veil of Ignorance, so the thought experiment is inapplicable. If he does, like I've seen other believers do, then we'll see his delusion most demonstrably. For we must be able to know enough about God's ways in order for us to believe that he knows what is best. Get it? If God's ways are so far above us that it appears his ways are not best, then it is counter-productive to give us a progressive revelation in which we cannot see that his ways are best. It would be akin to God planting false evidence to deceive us about the age of the universe, which was claimed by some Christians when science had shown the universe is much older than the genealogies in Genesis allowed (another delusional tactic in the face of hard cold evidence to the contrary).

Let me say it forthrightly: If this is the best that God can do then he is stupid and unworthy of worship because he does not have a minimal understanding of what it takes for us to believe in him, even though he supposedly created us. Does he not know who we are as human beings enough to know that by revealing himself in ways that are indistinguishable from not revealing himself at all that we cannot believe? Such a God therefore is ignorant, not omniscient.

So, either we can judge how God should reveal himself behind the Veil of Ignorance or we can't. If we can, then reasonable people should conclude as I do that this so-called progressive revelation does not come from a good omniscient God. If we can't, then the same conclusion follows.