Some thoughts on the logic of 'Heaven would be boring' arguments

I'm not sure where else to post this, but this thread does say it's for these kinds of discussions, so here it goes...

I've recently gotten into reading short Internet horror stories called Creepypastas again. I've written some myself in the past. They've been around for roughly a decade now. Anyways, the stories published on there vary in quality, though most of the truly bad ones tend to be deleted or moved onto a separate site/wiki. One of the categories for stories is 'Gods', which has been a controversial one in the past from what I've heard. 

One of the stories I stumbled upon reminded me of the frustrating logic of those who criticise the concept of an afterlife, namely Heaven. A common response that many will give is 'but if you can have or do anything you want, you'd be bored and everything would feel pointless', forming the backbone to the 'wish fulfillment' argument. The protagonist of the story expressed this view after he dies and contemplates existence in Heaven: 

https://creepypasta.fandom.com/wiki/I_Di...leComments

It's decently written, but has many glaring logical flaws IMO. There's also a decent amount of your typical 'nihilist/anti-theist power fantasy' content in here, with lines such as 'I wish I could strangle Him' (paraphrased I believe). 

A commenter below made some very good (and IMO, obvious) criticisms of the story, as well as other stories or arguments like this where an afterlife paradise is portrayed in a negative light. As an aspiring author myself, it reminds me of why including Heaven in your story and then trying to make it seem horrific in favour of nihilism doesn't work and is a bad idea. And the reason it doesn't work is once you establish the concept that one can have/be/do anything they want there:

• If you can do literally anything, as is often applied to Heaven in its depictions in media, then you would never get bored. If you wanted limitations and challenges, you would get them. Even if you'd experienced everything you could imagine, you could simply wish to experience things that you'd never imagined. 
  
• If you wanted, you could make your own more personal Heaven. You could visit and travel to fictional worlds that have existed do exist, and will exist throughout time. These are entire universes, even multiverses, you could make choose to have for yourself. You can explore the Universe within the confines of Heaven if you wanted to, assuming Heaven even has dimensional limitations. 
  
• Why couldn't one just wish/want to never experience boredom again? If you wanted to be imperfect, or at least feel imperfect, it could be made a reality since it's what you want. Imperfection isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't limited to just 'sin' or 'ego'. If your paradise would be paradoxically imperfect, then why would you not receive it if that's what you wanted most? If that's your Heaven, and you can have whatever you want, then it would surely make sense for an omnibenevolent place to give it to you?
  
• A common thing several people who pose this argument forget, from my experience at least, is the fact that you'd be reunited with family and friends who have died. You'd never have to worry about those you love being harmed or hurt again. You'd never have to worry about their suffering or losing them again. You wouldn't be alone ever again, unless of course you really wanted to be. You could watch over your future generations and those who are still alive. 
  
• If you're bored of eternal existence and having experienced everything, what's stopping you from wishing to forget all that and restart anew? 
  
• Just because you'd be without imperfections, doesn't mean you couldn't wish to be able to sleep and eat and drink, and retain all the usual bodily functions. 
  

Ultimately I'll never understand the logic of 'Heaven being boring/bad' unless you have a very limited imagination. But even then, surely you could wish for a better imagination, or for someone to help, like family and friends? This is of course just my opinion on the subject and only applies to the common depiction of Heaven/paradise as feeling omnipotent. Has anyone else had similar thoughts or debates with critics of the concept? I'm not an expert in philosophy myself and don't believe the afterlife is limited to just the concepts of Heaven and Hell, but I thought I'd give my two cents on this since it's been bugging me or a bit.

• Ultimately I'll never understand the logic of 'Heaven being boring/bad' unless you have a very limited imagination. But even then, surely you could wish for a better imagination, or for someone to help, like family and friends? This is of course just my opinion on the subject and only applies to the common depiction of Heaven/paradise as feeling omnipotent. Has anyone else had similar thoughts or debates with critics of the concept? I'm not an expert in philosophy myself and don't believe the afterlife is limited to just the concepts of Heaven and Hell, but I thought I'd give my two cents on this since it's been bugging me or a bit.

I'll play.  Just as an intro, I don't discuss personal positions in terms of religion.

On the thought-experiment side, there is "Farmer God".  The abstraction would explore a natural heaven, where successful character is sought.  There the "living things" are grown and reaped to be incorporated into god.  The bored and lazy, most likely get plucked or cut.  They are lost back to the dirt.  Only those animals and plants that grow in strength and in character get taken as harvest.

This takes care of "god as a helicopter mom", and puts the cold chill of Darwin into heaven.

A well written exploration of another more sophisticated view is C. S. Lewis.

https://www.cslewis.com/us/books/paperba...060652951/

I don't know (obviously) who that person is that runs the blog you've quoted from, OmniVN. I had a look through what he said etc and for me personally, it's not worth worrying about. I don't know if he really died and I don't much care (isn't he being sarky to try to prove a point ?) or he's just playing devil's advocate. It's the latter isn't it (I only looked briefly and quickly retreated)

Personally, I think people go to heaven when they die. I think it's a perfectly understandable/reasonable ambition to have. And I think some people go elsewhere, and they (probably) deserve it, but you can't say that (the former or the latter) unless you want to attract the jeers and derision of materialist sceptics. The slightest mention of such a notion makes their blood boil.

As to what "heaven" is like (whatever heaven is) I think it's unlikely that we could imagine it.

I don't know (obviously) who that person is that runs the blog you've quoted from, OmniVN. I had a look through what he said etc and for me personally, it's not worth worrying about. I don't know if he really died and I don't much care (isn't he being sarky to try to prove a point ?) or he's just playing devil's advocate. It's the latter isn't it (I only looked briefly and quickly retreated)

Personally, I think people go to heaven when they die. I think it's a perfectly understandable/reasonable ambition to have. And I think some people go elsewhere, and they (probably) deserve it, but you can't say that (the former or the latter) unless you want to attract the jeers and derision of materialist sceptics. The slightest mention of such a notion makes their blood boil.

As to what "heaven" is like (whatever heaven is) I think it's unlikely that we could imagine it.

Oh lol, there's been a misunderstanding here tim! This Creepypasta.wiki is a fictional story site (or at least most of the stories are meant to be fictional). I've even written a few myself! Sorry if I confused anyone! 

My point was is that I've seen these kinds of stories before, ones in which the author attempts to make a positive afterlife seem like a bad thing because of the whole 'eternal paradise' concept. They then imply that nihilism is then somehow a more logical and sensible position to hold. The moral of the story then goes something like 'afterlife bad, nihilism good'. The kinds of criticisms one could make of omnipotent characters in fiction and trying to write them, as well as omnipotence as a whole, can often be applied to the idea of writing a 'bad Heaven' as well. 

I don't blame you if you haven't heard of Creepypastas before. They were all the rage in the late 2000s and early-mid 2010s mostly with teenagers, but they've died down quite a bit in popularity. It's where the likes of the modern myth known as the Slenderman originated from I believe.

There are some stories on there that have more well-written philosophical themes. One of the most well-known and praised on there is the story simply titled 'An Egg'. It's a thought-provoking and enjoyable take on reincarnation, God, humanity, life, the soul, solipsism etc. Not really scary, but good nonetheless: 

https://creepypasta.fandom.com/wiki/An_E...-app=false

Oh lol, there's been a misunderstanding here tim! This Creepypasta.wiki is a fictional story site (or at least most of the stories are meant to be fictional). I've even written a few myself! Sorry if I confused anyone! 

My point was is that I've seen these kinds of stories before, ones in which the author attempts to make a positive afterlife seem like a bad thing because of the whole 'eternal paradise' concept. They then imply that nihilism is then somehow a more logical and sensible position to hold. The moral of the story then goes something like 'afterlife bad, nihilism good'. The kinds of criticisms one could make of omnipotent characters in fiction and trying to write them, as well as omnipotence as a whole, can often be applied to the idea of writing a 'bad Heaven' as well. 

I don't blame you if you haven't heard of Creepypastas before. They were all the rage in the late 2000s and early-mid 2010s mostly with teenagers, but they've died down quite a bit in popularity. It's where the likes of the modern myth known as the Slenderman originated from I believe.

Okay, no worries ! And Nihilism has always been much more sexy as far as I can remember.

I'm not sure where else to post this, but this thread does say it's for these kinds of discussions, so here it goes...

I've recently gotten into reading short Internet horror stories called Creepypastas again. I've written some myself in the past. They've been around for roughly a decade now. Anyways, the stories published on there vary in quality, though most of the truly bad ones tend to be deleted or moved onto a separate site/wiki. One of the categories for stories is 'Gods', which has been a controversial one in the past from what I've heard. 

One of the stories I stumbled upon reminded me of the frustrating logic of those who criticise the concept of an afterlife, namely Heaven. A common response that many will give is 'but if you can have or do anything you want, you'd be bored and everything would feel pointless', forming the backbone to the 'wish fulfillment' argument. The protagonist of the story expressed this view after he dies and contemplates existence in Heaven: 

https://creepypasta.fandom.com/wiki/I_Di...leComments

It's decently written, but has many glaring logical flaws IMO. There's also a decent amount of your typical 'nihilist/anti-theist power fantasy' content in here, with lines such as 'I wish I could strangle Him' (paraphrased I believe). 

A commenter below made some very good (and IMO, obvious) criticisms of the story, as well as other stories or arguments like this where an afterlife paradise is portrayed in a negative light. As an aspiring author myself, it reminds me of why including Heaven in your story and then trying to make it seem horrific in favour of nihilism doesn't work and is a bad idea. And the reason it doesn't work is once you establish the concept that one can have/be/do anything they want there:

• If you can do literally anything, as is often applied to Heaven in its depictions in media, then you would never get bored. If you wanted limitations and challenges, you would get them. Even if you'd experienced everything you could imagine, you could simply wish to experience things that you'd never imagined. 
  
• If you wanted, you could make your own more personal Heaven. You could visit and travel to fictional worlds that have existed do exist, and will exist throughout time. These are entire universes, even multiverses, you could make choose to have for yourself. You can explore the Universe within the confines of Heaven if you wanted to, assuming Heaven even has dimensional limitations. 
  
• Why couldn't one just wish/want to never experience boredom again? If you wanted to be imperfect, or at least feel imperfect, it could be made a reality since it's what you want. Imperfection isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't limited to just 'sin' or 'ego'. If your paradise would be paradoxically imperfect, then why would you not receive it if that's what you wanted most? If that's your Heaven, and you can have whatever you want, then it would surely make sense for an omnibenevolent place to give it to you?
  
• A common thing several people who pose this argument forget, from my experience at least, is the fact that you'd be reunited with family and friends who have died. You'd never have to worry about those you love being harmed or hurt again. You'd never have to worry about their suffering or losing them again. You wouldn't be alone ever again, unless of course you really wanted to be. You could watch over your future generations and those who are still alive. 
  
• If you're bored of eternal existence and having experienced everything, what's stopping you from wishing to forget all that and restart anew? 
  
• Just because you'd be without imperfections, doesn't mean you couldn't wish to be able to sleep and eat and drink, and retain all the usual bodily functions. 
  

Ultimately I'll never understand the logic of 'Heaven being boring/bad' unless you have a very limited imagination. But even then, surely you could wish for a better imagination, or for someone to help, like family and friends? This is of course just my opinion on the subject and only applies to the common depiction of Heaven/paradise as feeling omnipotent. Has anyone else had similar thoughts or debates with critics of the concept? I'm not an expert in philosophy myself and don't believe the afterlife is limited to just the concepts of Heaven and Hell, but I thought I'd give my two cents on this since it's been bugging me or a bit.

I'll say this in favor of such visualizations/notions of the nature of the afterlife. First, such reasoning isn't any argument for nihilism. To the contrary it would perhaps explain one reason why powerful, wise souls in a paradise environment would choose to reincarnate into a place full of suffering like the Earth. There is a large body of excellent empirical evidence for the reality of reincarnation, which demands explanation. It would seem to me that an environment of ultimately absolutely no limitations (all you would ever need to get something would be to think it in a world where thoughts are things) could get intolerably boring, perhaps enough so even to come back as an AIDS-afflicted short-lived starving child in some hellhole in Africa, for instance (if perhaps such bodies are the only next ones available). Limitation and challenge perhaps would be desperately craved like water to a person dying of thirst. Maybe.

Of course, other motivations of the soul are also easily imaginable, ones taught in many New Age soul-growth traditions. The problem with all of these is the nature of the persona/personality of the soul that would make such decisions as coming back to the AIDS-afflicted infant in Africa. This soul personality would have to be somewhat alien to our human personalities to whom suffering is very important and to be avoided, to the extent that it seems questionable to what extent this soul is really to be identified with the human person/personality. Of course this could just be a problem with our limited human preconceptions and hopes not with the nature of reality. And naturally, another logical possibility is that such choices are made by "the system" whatever that is, not the individual soul.

A whimsical aside. It occurs to me that Irving Berlin might have unwittingly composed a great allegory on the reincarnational journey of the soul, in his song "There's No Business Like Show Business" written for the musical Annie Get Your Gun in 1946. Of course the butcher, baker, grocer and clerk are the soul bored by dreary, boring and endless Heavenly existence and wanting for "anything theatrical and thrilling". Let's go on with the show!

The lyrics:

There's no business like show business like no business I know
Everything about it is appealing, everything that traffic will allow
Nowhere could you get that happy feeling when you are stealing that extra bow
There's no people like show people, they smile when they are low
Even with a turkey that you know will fold, you may be stranded out in the cold
Still you wouldn't change it for a sack of gold, let's go on with the show
The butcher, the baker, the grocer, the clerk
Are secretly unhappy men because
The butcher, the baker, the grocer, the clerk
Get paid for what they do but no applause.
They'd gladly bid their dreary jobs goodbye for anything theatrical and why?
There's no business like show business and I tell you it's so
Traveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nights
Smiling as you watch the theater filling, and there's your billing out there in lights
There's no people like show people, they smile when they are low
Angels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attack
Where could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show
You get word before the show has started that your favorite uncle died at dawn
Top of that, your pa and ma have parted, you're broken-hearted, but you go on
Yesterday they told you you would not go far, that night you open and there you are
Next day on your dressing room they've hung a star, let's go on with the show!!

[Laird]

Interesting topic, Omni. Thanks for posting.

Has anyone else had similar thoughts or debates with critics of the concept?

Yes, on Skeptiko. Several members suggested that no matter how pleasurable one's existence was (in heaven or wherever) one would eventually become accustomed to it, and then it would no longer be pleasurable but boring. My response was to question why, if that happened, the degree of one's pleasure could not simply be increased such that one was no longer accustomed to it, and it was no longer unpleasurable or boring by familiarity.

More generally, I suggest that an eternity of heaven - by some meaningful understanding - could entail eternal evolution or at least changing of conscious reality; and we have a taste of this here on Earth: for example, we have evolved/changed our subsistence from manual labour to large-scale automation; our game-playing entertainment from physical to virtual; our musical instruments from acoustic to electronic; etc etc. Who knows what paradigms are realisable that we right now can't (or don't) even imagine, just like the members of a subsistence tribe from hundreds of years ago more than likely couldn't (or didn't) even imagine the possibility of an electronic game like World of Warcraft (does anybody even play that anymore? I never got into it)?

[ETA: Also, consider that conscious evolution occurs in specific niches too, for example, the expert understanding of the possible and preferable opening moves in the game of chess has evolved over time. Think of how enjoyable it must be for chess masters to evolve the game in this way, and think of the endless niches in which this sort of pleasing evolution could occur over eternity.]

This seems to be a variation on your first point ("If you can do literally anything, as is often applied to Heaven in its depictions in media, then you would never get bored. If you wanted limitations and challenges, you would get them. Even if you'd experienced everything you could imagine, you could simply wish to experience things that you'd never imagined.").