Let's be biblically literary

[Belacqua]

if the purpose is to inform us of something that we really need to know about our wellbeing, 

That's a big if. 

It might be that we have been informed, but not in an easy way. 

you're saying your argument wouldn't change? That you'll stick to your current argument and not acknowledge that perhaps the counterarguments is reasonable?

I don't see any counterargument to what I'm saying.

All I'm saying is that we don't know what methods an omniscient existence would use. 

I agree that IFF it's best for us to get the straight dope, and an omniscient existence "wanted" to give us that, then it could presumably do that. But again, why is the best way to teach what's important always the most like an Ikea instruction sheet? We are thinking animals, not little sparks of rationality that happen to inhabit meat bodies, and our means of understanding work in all kinds of animalistic ways -- through body memory, through subconscious drives, through unprovable values, etc. etc. Just because a deity typed out some important information doesn't mean people would or could follow it. 

I happen to think that we learn more about what's important to humanity by re-reading Proust than from all the fMRI studies ever done. But you have to work on it.