by Joey Lawsin The heaven argument, also known as God's Boring Argument, is a theological case that claims that living in heaven as well as in hell is definitely boring or monotonous.
Heaven is a word derived from old English heofon. It means sky or firmament. Christians believe that heaven is where their god and humans after death dwell. However, in the Hebrew Bible, heaven was never mentioned as a destination for humans after death. Even the physical description of heaven was not fully illustrated in the Hebrew bible since no one has ever been there yet. Like Mesopotamia's religious literature, it was also believed that Heaven and Earth would come to an end one day. This belief is much the same as other previous ancient Near Eastern cultures that were profoundly influenced by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans, in this order. On the other hand, with other religious groups, heaven is believed to be nothing but metaphorical, symbolical, or mythological.
The imagery of heaven became fully developed when the New Testament was included in the bible. In this book, God becomes the ruler of Heaven, a place where angels, saints, and immortals also live. Although Heaven is perceived to be an equal place for everyone, some divine beings, however, dwell in mansions, some in paradise, and some in the holy city. And eventually, these places will permanently be established here on earth in an oasis called Jerusalem. Take note that the concept of "immortal soul" was thought to originate from the Greeks while the "resurrection of the dead" was of Persian origin and eventually adopted by the Romans in their New Testament.
Also, remember that the idea of heaven is thought to be a concept of reward and punishment. The idea is a poor selfish motivator that makes religious believers hypocrites in the sense that most of them do good things to appease a god. As Sam Harris wrote, " It is rather nobler to help people purely out of concern for their suffering than it is to help them because you think that God wants you to do it, or will reward you for doing it, or will punish you for not doing it. The problem with this linkage between morality and religion is that it gives bad people bad reasons to help other human beings when GOOD REASONS ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE."
Now, living in heaven or in hell is a dull, tedious life that lacks variety, interests, and excitement. Lazy people are the only beings that would love this kind of scenario.
Imagine, here on earth, that you are a billionaire and all the things you need in life are in your hands. No more sickness, no more pain, no more challenges, nothing that makes you sad. You live a happy life and you do always those things that interest you, 24/7, 360 days.
Imagine too that every single human living here on earth has the same situation as yours. No more sickness, no more pain, no more challenges. All they do is just the same as yours 24/7, 360 days. They also live a happy life like yours every day.
Now, since all these people do happy things every day, over and over and over again, for the rest of their lives, they have nothing new to do. If they have maximized all the things they want to do in life to be happy, what will they do next? If their day-to-day lives become repetitive, monotonous, passive, and tiresome, with no more challenges, no more excitement, no more new things, will this kind of life be boring?
If all this happiness takes place in heaven, will it be boring too?
Spoiler Alert: Btw, just like here on earth, you also work in heaven! You also have emotions! The sad part, there is still discrimination, division, and inequalities.
Theophilia: The Paradox of Omnibenevolence
The argument of omnibenevolence posits that if God is all-loving, the existence of pain and suffering would be inconceivable. The notion of an all-loving God permeates various scriptures, suggesting a divine essence that is the epitome of love and kindness.
However, Lawsin’s critique presents a stark contradiction: the presence of an omnibenevolent God seems irreconcilable with the reality of suffering endured by the innocent — be it children, the elderly, or even animals. A God of perfect love would shield their vulnerabilty from agony.
Consider the profound sorrow of a family grappling with a mother’s coma, or the grief of an owner whose pet is forced to be euthanized by a veterenarian who claims that she is an expert who can make decision if the pet should live or die. The ravages of war, killing innocent children, women, the elderly, and the disabled in its wake. Such instances beg the question: why would a God, capable of boundless love, permit such despair?
If indeed an all-loving god presides over our world, then the persistence of suffering challenges the very essence of divine benevolence.
About the Author :
 |
Joey Lawsin is the author of the book "Dimetrix". He is a revisionist who wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a conscious machine known as Biotronics, and formulated the argument known as "The Heaven Predicament". The concept is an excerpt from his book "Man Created God".
