Help me refute the "suffering will be insignificant in heaven" theodicy

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hi guy, I am making a video refuting some responses to the problem of evil, and I would like some help refuting a response. The response is that the suffering human beings endure on earth will be insignificant when we are in heaven, and it will almost look just like a bad dream. What would you guys say to that?

Another common theodicy is the greater good defence. It's the argument that God allows evil to achieve some greater good. My response would be to say that an omnipotent God could have actualized any logically possible state of affair without the need to create suffering, but I am not sure this response is strong enough.

Some have made the case that earthly suffering will be a source of entertainment for those in Heaven, a sort of divinely ordained schadenfreude.

For the second bit, the point doesn't need to be particularly strong. Just phrase it as a question to be answered and sit back and smile while they tell you that God is mysterious.

Boru

[Belacqua]

 It's probably better to get an in-depth knowledge of what Christians say before doing a refutation.

Or one could simply ask if they can demonstrate in any remotely objective way, that what they are claiming is possible. If not then one need refute nothing, just treat the claim as one would if they claimed they owned an invisible dragon, or any other unfalsifiable claim. The fact a claim is made by someone of obvious intellect, does not on its own lend the claim any credence, this is a form of appeal to authority fallacy.

Not believing a claim, is not the same as refuting it, and thus need carry no epistemological burden of proof, to suggest otherwise would be to invoke an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, as I must, and withhold belief from them all, as I must.

There is no reason at all why you should deal with Christian claims. You can go your whole life never thinking about them.

However, if you plan to make a video refuting Christian claims, it makes sense to understand what the claims are. 

Remember the case of poor Richard Dawkins, who attempted to refute some basic Thomist arguments in one of his books. He misrepresented the Thomist ideas so badly that for anyone knowledgeable, he damaged his own credibility. 

You sometimes use the term "straw man." What Dawkins did was a textbook example, comically misrepresenting someone else's argument in order to pretend to refute it. He did not refute it, because he didn't know what he was talking about.

[h4ym4n]

Why does an all powerful god allow humans to suffer to begin with? Is it because of original sin in the garden, a test which god set up knowing (it is all knowing) that they would fail? If so then humans were less than a perfect creation which would make god imperfect.

Do they think all humans go to heaven? It's not what I was taught.

It's hard to refute beliefs based no basically nonsense, especially ignorant beliefs/believers. My bet is somewhere along the line 'free will and mysterious ways' will make an appearance.

Bold mine

Why does an all powerful all knowing god FORCE people into an existence where it/god knows before a person conceived if they will suffer or burn for all eternity or stay buried in the grave until jesus returns blowing his horn?


1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

[Sheldon]

Or one could simply ask if they can demonstrate in any remotely objective way, that what they are claiming is possible. If not then one need refute nothing, just treat the claim as one would if they claimed they owned an invisible dragon, or any other unfalsifiable claim. The fact a claim is made by someone of obvious intellect, does not on its own lend the claim any credence, this is a form of appeal to authority fallacy.

Not believing a claim, is not the same as refuting it, and thus need carry no epistemological burden of proof, to suggest otherwise would be to invoke an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, as I must, and withhold belief from them all, as I must.

There is no reason at all why you should deal with Christian claims. You can go your whole life never thinking about them.

A rather pointless observation, I could say the same to you, and yet you are posting your thoughts?

However, if you plan to make a video refuting Christian claims, it makes sense to understand what the claims are. 

Indeed, but nothing to do with my response, which expressly observed when there was no need to do this, and why. 

Remember the case of poor Richard Dawkins, who attempted to refute some basic Thomist arguments in one of his books. He misrepresented the Thomist ideas so badly that for anyone knowledgeable, he damaged his own credibility. 

Utterly irrelevant to my post and my point, again? 

You sometimes use the term "straw man." What Dawkins did was a textbook example, comically misrepresenting someone else's argument in order to pretend to refute it. He did not refute it, because he didn't know what he was talking about.

What has that to do with my post? Do you see the irony in mentioning straw men, while responding to my post by raising points I have not mentioned, and that do not address anything I said?

[Paleophyte]

Hi guy, I am making a video refuting some responses to the problem of evil, and I would like some help refuting a response. The response is that the suffering human beings endure on earth will be insignificant when we are in heaven, and it will almost look just like a bad dream. What would you guys say to that?

A heaven full of waking nightmares? Hard pass. Especially since now that you can see everybody else who's still alive enduring that or worse. Not my idea of a good time.

More interestingly, how do you deal with the problem that when you get to heaven you'll know that every last one of your friends and loved ones that isn't there with you is suffering eternal torment courtesy of the Big Boss whose Hozanas you're singing. Kinda takes the bloom off the whole paradise thing.

Another common theodicy is the greater good defence. It's the argument that God allows evil to achieve some greater good. My response would be to say that an omnipotent God could have actualized any logically possible state of affair without the need to create suffering, but I am not sure this response is strong enough.

An omniscient Deity doesn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils. A Deity can always choose another alternative, and can choose one with no evil if it so desires. A god that has limited choices is a limited god and that's just  

[GrandizerII]

Hi guy, I am making a video refuting some responses to the problem of evil, and I would like some help refuting a response. The response is that the suffering human beings endure on earth will be insignificant when we are in heaven, and it will almost look just like a bad dream. What would you guys say to that?

This might work for universalist Christians, but if the Christian believes that some people are doomed to eternal suffering in hell, this certainly ain't going to cut it as an argument.

[Thumpalumpacus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nice_Place_to_Visit

[arewethereyet]

Sounds to me that when you enter heaven (if it actually existed) you are zapped with one of those memory erasers like in the movie 'Men in Black'.

The whole thing is a bullshit concept when you realize that you are supposed to be reunited with your loved ones but your memory altered. Must be certain memories that are zapped.

[HappySkeptic]

The more theologically-minded Christians tend to go for the second version. Dante, for example, describes it this way. He explains why the suffering one had endured in life will be of no consequence in heaven.

The best book I know for a readable explanation of both versions is The Great Chain of Being by Lovejoy. It's probably better to get an in-depth knowledge of what Christians say before doing a refutation.

So, if one rejects what the bible actually claims (a physical body, though one uncorrupted by original sin and therefore immortal) then one is rejecting a strawman?

This seems like special pleading.  If atheists reject what Christianity actually teaches, we just aren't reading the right authors.  Others will have much more "refined" beliefs that aren't so ridiculous, and atheists are therefore incorrect in rejecting these more intellectual revisions of Christianity.  The problem is that one can always "refine" a religion to worm away from criticisms by choosing from an endless collection of alternatives.  Such construction is not a path to truth, unless it is backed up by evidence.  Even science can suffer from this malady.

Anyone can have their own ideas about heaven and hell, and they are entitled to them.  There is no evidence of either things existing, but go crazy with your imagination.  That doesn't mean atheists have to consider every possible conception before rejecting the whole idea.

[arewethereyet]

Just a note...last time I looked, Dante isn't considered a contributor to the holy books. I suppose you can make the argument that it's all fiction.

Maybe avoid throwing that out there if you are really trying to reach the Bible followers.