Iruko makes the Meslier-Martin-Lamberth argument that if Heaven is so good , why not Heaven on Earth? Nelson Pike adumbrates that we would be robots if we could not do wrong and therefore, we would not be moral beings.But the same would have to true in Heaven! So, theists special plead that God has to have epistemic distance from us, the hidden god and we have to pass horrendous tests. No rational being cares for worship , so the epistemic distance argument is wrongheaded.The tests are excrutiating at times .Parents put thier children into as safe and good as places as possible without tests.So God is less than a good father .A loving god would not have tempted mankind with the tree.If being a moral being is right , then moral beings should have a knowledge of right and wrong. So Yahweh did wrong in punishing the two and more wrong in making a hereditary inclination to do wrong.Too, if one would be a robot when only able to do good , then God is the supreme robot! Then again, he is afterall a moral bieng in that He did wrong in allowing horrendous evils! Like father, like children! John HIck ,using the epistemic and soul-making arguments commits a straw man and the alll or nothing fallacy in averrring that we skeptics advocate paradise when he do that while we take his argument for paradise agaisnt him. There w ould not have to be so much evil as a contrast to good.Theodicy is a series of cop outs and rationalizations.