"Probably no more than you suffer when seeing your loved ones disobeying you only on a much grander scale."
So He does suffer. Therefore He cannot be God.
"The idea of a suffering God resonates with our relational instincts and appears to be a great comfort in times of suffering.Yet it’s in those difficult moments, when tears flood our faces, that theology matters most. While it may seem comforting to tell a friend that God suffers as well, on further reflection it’s a dangerous idea, one that gives little comfort or hope in the end.
The point is that a God who suffers, a God subject to emotional change, is actually not all that comforting. A God who suffers may be like us, but He cannot rescue us. In fact, an emotional God is just as helpless as we are. In times of suffering, we need a God who does not suffer, one who can overcome suffering in order to redeem us and return justice to this evil world.
For this reason, the church—from the early fathers to the Westminster Confession of Faith—has believed that the God of the Bible is a God without passions. In other words, He is impassible. Up until the nineteenth century, the word passions was a word only to be applied to the creature, not the Creator. It was a word that had negative connotations, referring to someone or something that was vulnerable to change, subject to the emotional power of others. When our fathers denied passions in God, therefore, they were distinguishing Him as the immutable, self-sufficient Creator from the ever-changing, needy creature."
Again, did Jesus suffered or not? If he did then he cannot be God. If he did not then the whole thing was just a big con.
