The conclusion that the Creator’s means of communication is the Torah

Hello Rabbi
I agree with you that there is a Creator of the world.
I don’t understand the claim that the Torah is the means of communication that He chose to tell us what He wants from us.
I think there are several ways that God communicates with us:

1. Conscience guides us morally, from the word “compass” that is meant to guide.
2. Feelings, sometimes we feel that something is right or wrong and don’t know how to rationally explain why.
3. Our destiny, everyone has something they are good at and people know whether they are doing the right thing for them or not, those who do not fulfill their destiny feel meaningless and become depressed.
4. Karma, sometimes when we do the wrong thing we get some kind of blow to wake us up.
5. Sometimes we think about something before it happens, like an old friend and then suddenly he calls us.
6. Sometimes we pray to receive some clues and sometimes we receive them, but they are always interpreted differently in order to preserve the right to choose.
7. Sometimes when we do the right thing with faith, everything works out for us and it feels like the world supports us. When things don’t go our way time and time again, it’s a sign to check if it’s indeed the right thing.

The common denominator of all these means of communication is that they are internal, that is, self-evident only to the person to whom the communication was directed, and there is no need to convince them with rational arguments that it is not true because the person feels and knows that the communication conveyed to them is true, but even this knowledge is not 100 percent sufficient to preserve the right to choose.
I agree with you that it feels unsatisfactory and I would like stronger communication. I understand you agree that the conscience comes from him, and therefore this is one form of communication that he has chosen, there must be a very good reason why he would deviate and choose another, completely different form of communication.
The form of communication through tradition has many problems that other forms of communication do not have:

1. There is no certainty that it is true, compared to an inner feeling that you know it is true.
2. Not personal, but external.
3. A broken phone, things change after many deliveries and the level of accuracy of the original message decreases.
4. The level of credibility of books was once lower due to the dictatorship that was here, a king who determined everything, and therefore he could censor all other opinions and kill anyone who disagreed with him. Writing books was very difficult and a wealthy queen was needed to write them and pass on the doctrine, so she could write whatever she wanted.
5. There is a theory that when the Internet was established, the government’s secret information began to leak to the public, and the CIA began to spread various conspiracy theories to hide the truth among many lies, and even today, when information is more open than ever, there are many people who live in a bubble and do not know the whole truth, so it makes sense to think that while once upon a time, most people preferred to live quietly and let the regime do what it wanted as long as it did not interfere with them, it would take a major disruption of the regime for there to be a civil war. The Torah, as the kings of the past (who still practiced idolatry) actually lived it, was relatively easy, just as there are people today in the religious sector who, apart from outward appearances, do nothing, and it is easier for them to be honest in the sector than to rebel and return to the question of which is more difficult.
6. As I understand it, you also don’t believe that everything written is true, nor that everything the sages (tradition) say is true, and you allow yourself to interpret and innovate things in a way that suits your conscience (the more reliable form of communication), so if you do this anyway, I don’t understand the insistence on Torah/tradition.

Your argument that it is impossible for the goal to be conscience or that society was built for itself, meaning that it cannot be that the goal is recursive, does not cover all the possibilities. I do not pretend to understand the Creator of the world and why I was created and why not, but there are other possibilities:

1. We cannot fully understand the cause of creation because by its very nature the cause is outside of creation and outside of our understanding, otherwise it would be recursive as you claimed.
2. The reason is to learn and improve in following one’s conscience and not making mistakes. It’s not always easy. It could be a kind of school to learn to be good given free choice.

For these reasons, your conclusion is not clear to me. I would love to understand more since your arguments sound rational and I have barely heard you talk about this part.
I want to reiterate that I do not pretend to understand the Creator of the world and why I was created in this world, and I am not satisfied that He allows evil in the world to happen, I am not convinced by the argument that good justifies evil, it may be better to have nothing at all. In any case, this is the closest I have come so far to exploring the truth.
Thank you so much for trying to do good in the world.
I would be very grateful if you could help me understand where I am wrong in your opinion.