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

[Modern Atheism]

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.

[Silver]

Simple.

Heaven isn't real.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

That the amount of hedonistic pleasure they expect in heaven has no bearing on whether the actual pain on earth demonstrate gods malevolence, incompetence, indifference, or any combination of the three.  

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.

This is the claim that god is specifically incompetent.  It doesn't know how to bake a happy cake without breaking a few children.

Here's the thing, though. Reasoned rebuttals don't work on an irrational belief. Take a religious tack, suggest that if they don't stop talking shit about god he might deliver them some inconsequential pain in this life and the next.

[Rev. Rye]

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?

 One would think that an all-powerful or at least halfway-decent deity would have found a way around it if it was this going to be this bad.

[brewer]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Why would a perfectly good, omnipotent god require suffering for redemption at all?

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.

Then phrase it as "So, God has decided that some good people have to die in order to achieve a greater good. Couldn't he have accomplished that good without sentencing good people to die? If your god needs evil in order to make good, then he is not omnipotent."

[Belacqua]

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?

Within Christianity there are two main ways of imagining heaven. In the simpler version, heaven is like this world only better. In the version that's harder to imagine, it's entirely different. For example, it is outside of time and space. 

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, dantes version, so much better, where it's a theater of suffering for the pious. Pouring molten lead up urethras outside of time and space absolutely defangs moral criticism.

Because the really important thing...the artistic thing... is the zipcode, not what you're (allegedly) up to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Quick question: how many Christians have read Dante or Lovejoy? I'm betting anyone below the 99th percentile hasn't, and probably tighter. So is this what Christians say, or what some writers write? How in-depth do these Christians go?

I'm pretty sure they aren't as intellectual as you present them, or yourself.

[Sheldon]

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?

 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.