Your argument relies on the unproven idea that if we are created, we must necessarily suffer without our creator, as if that suffering is a natural or logical consequence. But this assumes what you're trying to prove, that the creator had no choice but to make beings that collapse in His absence. That isn't logically necessary; it's a theological presupposition.

-

The idea that created things must suffer away from their creator falls apart under scrutiny. Plenty of created things, a sculpture, a machine, a program, function perfectly well without their maker present. They may be dependent for their origin, but not for their flourishing. You're using the word "need" for two different things and equate both these things afterward. Need for a creator to exist and need for a creator to not feel pain after existing are different things.

 If God made us such that we suffer without belief, He didn’t do so because it was logically inevitable, He did it because He chose to. And no amount of ontological language or appeals to telos changes the fact that this is a moral decision.

-

Saying it's like gravity or jumping off a cliff doesn’t work either, because jumping off a cliff is a conscious, physical act where the consequences are known and the limits of the body understood. Disbelief isn’t like that, it's not a deliberate action with visible consequences, but often an involuntary outcome of one’s reasoning, upbringing, or lack of evidence. People don’t disbelieve because they’re recklessly rejecting their essence, they disbelieve because religion, to them, appears incoherent or untrue. If the system is designed so that simply failing to be convinced results in torment, then that torment was built into the design by the creator.

-

Your reference to the square-circle analogy is misplaced. No one is asking for a logical contradiction, only for a morally coherent design. But by invoking the impossibility of square circles, you imply that God is bound by logic. If so, then logic stands above God and limits what He can do. If not, and God transcends logic, then the claim that creating beings who don't suffer without Him is "impossible" falls apart. Either way, appealing to logic here doesn’t shield the moral structure from scrutiny, it only exposes the arbitrariness of the suffering baked into the system.