I'll work with the definition of God as the Creatrix (and in Itself the Increatus), since else what would I start from? I will also bring up the question of divine omnipresence.
So firstly, what do we "know," if anything, about what it would take to create a world, in terms of love? Do we "know" that the act of creation must itself be an act of universal love? And then what if creation is intrinsically accompanied by continuation/preservation, so that all things which the Creatrix has made, persist on Its account as such?
Consider that if the Increatus is impassible, then Its love is not a response to the value of the beloved-of-deity, but is an action thereunto, i.e. what the Christian terminology names agape. Presumably, we can disentangle the strictness of the Christian reference, from the conceptual case, at least owing to the word agape itself being embedded in a religiously neutral (or ambivalent) ancient Greek language (Koine? I don't know what that means, though). But so if we identify the Creatrix as purely active (as well as "pure act," which is not quite the same thing, I have recently found out...), then our identification of the form of Its love must be one that is proactive, projective, and again this might be found even in the general will to create and conserve the universe in existence.
How direct is this? If we credit ontological intermediaries with existence too, we might well think that the Uncreated transmits Its power through those, but we would not want to say that it transposed Its agape upon them alone, so that it would be left to the mediatrices to transpose this love again upon the world. We should hope that the divine nature directly loves the world that It is supposed to have created.
Now, "in principle," or "other things being equal," there might be two ways to recognize the existence of a Creatrix: discursively first, or intuitively first. (I say "in principle" in scare quotes to indicate that, per the usual ascription of absolute and especial unity to the divine nature, it might be more fitting if mortal intellects could pass into a state that was neither quite discursive nor quite intuitive, but some retro-Hegelian transcendence of either.) So, if the Uncreated can be "known" by a priori insight, then since this insight can accompany us wheresoever we go, this might count as a kind of divine omnipresence. Then, however, if we hold to the intuition thesis instead, we should think less, unless we are in a state of delusional psychosis, that we are having clear perception-like engagement with the all-encompassing and potentially all-incinerating light of the Creatrix. (Sorry, Hesychasts...) And one would be very hard pressed to sincerely assert that one had been intuitively bearing witness to this light for all of one's self-aware life.
Synoptic gospel of the preceding: assume that God's love is active, and that knowledge of God is at least based on pure reason or pure intuition, if not neither or both. Now, is God discursively or intuitively omnipresent? Since there is perhaps rather obviously no omnipresent intuition of God (on our parts), we are left with the possibility, or requirement, that we prove God's being a priori if at all. Since that too seems beyond us, then God can't be directly evident to the world It created. So even if God's love is directly for the world as an active substrate of the act of creation/preservation itself, yet God is still not directly knowledge-theoretically relating to the world as such. This is a possibly justifiable mismatch between God's loving us eternally and God's not appearing to do much of anything about anything sempiternally. But I want to just suggest "possibly justifiable" as an apt description, here; maybe the idea could be turned around to show that there must not be a God who has creative love for us, after all, instead.
