This paper develops a comparative evidential challenge to a specific target: a perfectly loving, communicatively capable personal God who intends every capable, nonresistant person to have a conscious relationship with God and who authorizes a determinate religious message for that purpose. The challenge is not that a divine being must appear as one more object in the world, that sacred texts cannot mediate a person, or that religious diversity deductively entails atheism. It concerns the fit between the target's attributed aims and the actual ecology of revelation. Apparently nonresistant nonbelief occurs; religious identity and confidence remain strongly shaped by inheritance and geography; and mutually incompatible traditions rely on structurally similar combinations of text, testimony, community, and interpreted experience. These facts are expected on ordinary cultural-transmission models. They are less expected on a model of universally intended, reliably discriminating disclosure unless independently motivated reasons for ambiguity are added. A qualitative likelihood comparison therefore pressures the targeted form of relational and specifically Christian theism without pretending to yield a numerical Bayes factor or a proof of metaphysical naturalism. Replies based on freedom, soul-making, mutual epistemic dependence, purposive evidence, religious experience, sin, transcendence, and divine mystery are examined in their strongest forms. Several identify genuine possible goods, but a possibility becomes an adequate reply only when it explains the degree and distribution of ambiguity without making every possible pattern equally compatible with the hypothesis. The resulting conclusion is deliberately limited: the public evidence gives reflective inquirers substantial reason to reduce confidence in strong universal-disclosure claims and permits suspension of judgment. It does not show that every believer is irrational, that private experience has no evidential force for its subject, or that no God exists.