But can I love God back?

I know the card "Why evil" is worn out at the edges from being pulled too many times, in addition to the "Because free will" response.

The common denominator of the religions I've seen and know about so far is a God so powerful, infinitely good and wise. And that everything that exists come from him (or her). It doesn't seem too absurd to question why such a being would deem it necessary to create a world with evil in it.

"Because he gave humans free will!"

I fail to understand this argument. Freedom, free will, they only operate within a predefined space of possible actions. I don't say I don't have free will because I'm not able to see UV lights. If something is impossible in my reality, constrained by my very biology, free will can't even apply there. You don't have your freedom taken away for not being able to do it. Absence registers only when there is a possibility for it to be present.

Why did God construct a reality in which evil belongs to the space of possibilities at all?

"But suffering is necessary for the soul to be strengthened" is the common answer to this.

If every value, every virtue came from God, then the way those values relate to each other must've also come from him.

Why make the soul NEED these for strengthening? Where did that come from?

"Love must be freely chosen for it to be meaningful", again, is a circular argument. We see freely chosen love as the only acceptable form of love because we are built to have evil in our menu. If that is simply impossible for us, if love is a beautiful intrinsic concept and value, what's lacking that? What is wrong in love as simply nature?

"Kindness, goodness needs evil as a choice, so that when the former are chosen, it holds more value."

Why not make these intrinsic? Is God good because he can be evil? If God is simply good, then goodness as an intrinsic value can exist. Kindness, goodness, love are all intrinsic values then. It implies that it's our design that makes us view them this way, as relative to other undesirable values.

"Evil is not a value in itself, its the absence of good"

One can say that evil is what emerges if the ability to do good is not utilized by the being. I think the idea of intrinsic goodness refutes this argument as well.

And even then, the existence of psychopathy, where people are simply born that way instead of them choosing to be that way, I think reduces the impact of that argument.

One can say the example I gave for free will is a biological one, and that I cannot apply it for metaphysical concepts. We see animals having the inability to grasp these metaphysical concepts. Does that mean they don't exist? I think it simply just shows that biology is an important constraint for how we perceive these concepts, which again would lead me to ask this.

There might be a ton of other metaphysical concepts that are incomprehensible to us because we are not meant and built to comprehend them. We know and think about morality as we know it because we are built to think and perceive it. An animal doesn't know know anything other than what is needed/built for its reality. that doesn't mean that other metaphysical concepts don't exist, it means that they are not calibrated to work with them. we wouldn't know if anything other than this exist because we are calibrated to work with this.

Why ?

One could say this relative nature of values is not a choice, but rather a part of God itself, the way this very universe functions, woven into the very logic of our universe. Fair.

But why to this extent? Why have sadism and psychopathy in our system? Why is THIS amount of cruelty necessary for the realization of a greater good? We see great, inhuman levels of cruelty and evil in our world. We have neurological disorders that predisposes humans to create more harm. Even if this contrast is in the very reality, why to THIS extent?

If evil is a necessity, if even God cannot create persons without the possibility of evil, cannot have love without the risk of refusal, then God is constrained by something.

But if God is the source of everything, then the design of our world feels more like a choice.

I cannot worship a being who made a choice like that. I don't understand why the lynching of people, battered bodies of children are needed for goodness to hold weight somewhere. I don't see anything holy in it. I don't see anything worthy of worship. I refuse to worship a being like that.

The very last resort I often see is, "God might have his own reasons, human mind cannot comprehend the divine knowledge and reasoning." Fair enough. But i can only see with what I've been given. I can only work with the tools i already have, not with the tools i might have. The tools given by God themselves.

God made us rational beings who seek logic. If you travel your entire life that way, only to see that the final leap to peace is the abandonment of logic and taking up just trust and faith, I don't see the point.

If God made me a creature capable of reason, and that rationality applied honestly leads me to the moral and logical objections of God's choices, then demanding me to abandon that rationality as the price of faith, peace and belonging is like betraying the fundamental core of humans. If this is how the world and God is, then in my view, the correct logical and moral choice is to reject him. I don't care if he really exists, i would walk away.

I know what that sounds like. If everything came from him, then my moral tools also came from him, "oh you're judging God from the very vision he gave you!"

I cannot abandon my reason just to have peace. If this is as far as my reason takes me, and if i have to take a leap to go the other side, i would choose to stay here, to walk away instead. If this is all i can know as a human, then the choice i would make is refusal. I don't even need the scraps off his table.I know it's a price to pay. I still long sometimes, to belong somewhere, to try and believe, to try and have faith, but I've realized that is not a path for me to take. I know it's a price.

But acceptance is also a price I'm not willing to pay.

---

But what can I say? I'm only 19 with decades more to live and experience (hopefully). I might become religious in the future one day. I might start to reject and oppose the very points I wrote here. Do i see that as a failure? No.

I think the core of my contention here is the expectation to betray my self. I cannot live with things that don't make sense to me.Perhaps I'd return to this after reading some actual philosophy. If, in the future, I discover something that answers my questions, if I find myself with new tools, leading me to believe more and to reach a different conclusion, I would be happy, as long as I did not make myself selectively blind to anything just to believe in something. If that is the place I arrive at while being true to my reason, then I would be happy to worship God. But even then, i can only walk, not leap.

But if this is what I would stay in till the end, that still doesn't agitate me. I'll gladly live and die here. At least I will have myself whole. I only hope i stay open till the end, and true to the things i see and reason out. I think that's enough. I think that's the thing that matters.

(I'm definitely returning to this after reading some serious philosophy that would dismantle all my points lol)