This essay belongs to the realm of philosophy. It is not intended to criticize or attack any specific individual or organization. I also state here that any selective quotation aimed at harming others is discouraged.
This essay expresses my personal views on metaphysics and theodicy. I am neither a diplomat nor a politician; these are purely my own words.
I live as a Protestant Christian within Japan’s complex, multilayered world of Buddhism, Confucianism, animism, and pantheism. I chose this path and received baptism myself, a rare decision in Japan.
Because of that background, even from an agnostic standpoint, loving You whether You exist or not is not contradictory; rather, it exemplifies a faith that transcends empirical proof. From such an outsider’s stance, I hope to contribute to the discourse on God. As a Japanese Protestant, I find value in the apparent paradox of loving God while also offering criticism.
1. Awareness of the Problem
Metaphysics, unless given explicit context and premises like Butler’s or Rawls’s, struggles to address concrete issues in the empirical world.
Using words such as being, evil, and God without definitions—much like in poetry—cuts both ways.
Because the concept of God is omniscient and omnipotent, any attempt at definition triggers an automatic “post‑hoc, You knew all along,” making precision difficult.
Probably the concept of God is the apex of a tree of abstractions built by recursively applying induction and deduction. For example, if God is ubiquitous and transcends space‑time, does “God’s movement” ever become contradictory? Scientific progress suggests a shift from “dwelling in the heavens” to “dwelling within human hearts.”
2. A Letter to God
2-1 I accept Genesis. Adam was molded from dust in Your image. Human beings can be so emotional that they need anger management, and some men—driven by distorted reward systems conditioned toward domination—inflict abuse or sexual violence; they too are descendants of Adam. This implication saddens me as a Protestant, because it traces such behavior back to You.
2-2 Declaring You omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good is easy, yet it leads to the same dilemma found in Plato’s theory of Forms: where does that essence exist? Could You explain its existential location to Sartre first?
2-3 In emergencies, people work without sleep or meals to protect the vulnerable—the elderly who need care, pregnant women, children, and the injured. Families, nurses, and members of the Japan Self‑Defense Forces do the same. After the 11 March 2011 disaster, for instance, one female nurse continued working after a night shift because her colleagues could not reach the hospital.
2-4 Nursery teachers speak so that infants can understand; we comfort dogs, cats, and even cattle with words or by holding them.
2-5 “2-3 and 2-4” show what limited, fragile humans already do. Yet across five thousand years of verifiable history, not a single record shows You doing likewise. That is negligence, God. You criticized the Pharisees, yet You contradict Yourself. Please answer the prayers of lonely or ill people on call, at the same standard as ordinary citizens.
2-6 Earth holds eight billion people. If we divide that by Dunbar’s number of 150, we need about 5.333 × 10⁷ neutral spiritual counselors dispatched instantly; then global problems would disappear. Do not use free will as an invincible “Get‑Out‑of‑Jail‑Free card” to shift blame onto humanity through inaction. Freedom and responsibility are inseparable.
God‑concept < nation‑state <<< human beings
(On Your side, responsibility is small; on ours, it is large. Freedom and responsibility are asymmetrical.)
Those with the least freedom somehow bear the most responsibility; stop this blame‑shifting. Why does evil exist if You are wholly good? Because responsibility lies with You, God. Therefore, please provide proof of Your own existence.
3. Would Human Behavior Change If God Were Dead?
I do not believe God is born or dies. I understand in religious‑studies terms that humans created gods, but that is not the issue here.
Terrible deeds have been repeated in history under Your name. Yet would believers ignore Your teachings, secular ethics, or national laws?
I promise that, whether You exist or not, my ethics, pride, and sense of decency are what allow me to remain human.
So, God, You need not answer this question. We humans will each decide through our own ethics, pride, and dignity.
Whether You are real, absent, or fictional, I will love You and promise to be the salt of the earth.
Does loving while criticizing constitute a contradiction?
Do you never criticize your father?
Your mother?
Your country?
If love made criticism impossible, how would that differ from censorship?