Interesting post. Assuming that I understand your argument, I'm going to put it into premises so it's clearer.

1. We should only speculate about something if we can either experience it or exactly define it.
2. We cannot experience heaven.
3. We do not have an exact definition of heaven.
4. Therefore, we should not speculate about heaven.

The argument raises some valid concerns about the challenges of speculating about abstract concepts or phenomena beyond our direct experience or exact definition. However, I also believe that there are some important considerations that could expand the scope of this argument and provide a more nuanced perspective on the topic of speculation.

Firstly, while it may be difficult to speculate about something that we cannot directly experience or define precisely, I think that speculation has often played a key role in advancing human knowledge and understanding in various fields. Speculation can inspire new ideas, hypotheses, or theories, which can then be tested and refined through empirical observation and logical analysis. As such, the value of speculation might not be limited solely to things we can experience or define precisely.

Secondly, the argument assumes that we cannot experience heaven, which may be true for most people. However, some individuals claim to have had near-death experiences or other mystical encounters that they interpret as glimpses of heaven. While these experiences may not be universally accepted or verifiable, they can provide a basis for speculation and discussion, offering insights into the human condition and our understanding of the afterlife.

Lastly, although we may not have an exact definition of heaven, various religious and spiritual traditions offer their interpretations of what heaven might be like. These descriptions, while not universally agreed upon, can serve as starting points for speculation and discussion. Engaging in such discussions can help us better understand our own beliefs, values, and world views, which can be valuable for personal growth and development.

Very interesting question. First, it's important to clarify that the initial argument about divine hiddenness was focused on its role in fostering human free will and moral growth during our earthly existence. The nature of heaven and its impact on free will and moral growth may be significantly different from the conditions on Earth. While divine hiddenness may no longer be present in heaven, it does not necessarily imply the loss of free will or the cessation of moral growth. The nature of moral growth might change in heaven, as the experiences and conditions that contribute to moral development on Earth (e.g., temptation, suffering, and moral dilemmas) may no longer be relevant. Concerning your specific question about the person who repents and turns to Jesus moments before death, Christian beliefs suggest that sincere repentance and faith in Jesus can lead to salvation and entrance into heaven, regardless of the timing of the conversion. The story of the penitent thief in the Bible (Luke 23:39-43) supports this idea, where a criminal crucified alongside Jesus sincerely repents and is promised entrance into paradise. As for the transformation upon entering heaven, many religious beliefs propose that individuals undergo a purification or cleansing of the soul, which aligns them more closely with divine values. In this context, moral growth or the exercise of free will may not be necessary in the same way as on Earth, as individuals are already in a state of spiritual perfection or harmony with the divine. In conclusion, the original argument about the significance of divine hiddenness for moral growth on Earth may not directly apply to the conditions of heaven as the nature of existence and the goals of moral development may be fundamentally different in the afterlife.

Interesting post, however, I'd like to present an alternative perspective that might add to the complexity of this discussion.

Consider the following flipped argument:

1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact.
2. There is currently no empirical evidence for the non-existence of a deity.
3. Therefore, the belief in the non-existence of a deity is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. (1,2 MP)

This alternative argument suggests that both theism and atheism involve a degree of faith and personal beliefs, as neither position can be definitively proven or disproven with empirical evidence alone. The debate between theism and atheism often extends beyond empirical evidence and encompasses philosophical, logical, and experiential grounds.

Pascal's Wager automatically comes to my mind. It can be summarized as follows:
1. If you believe in God and God exists, you gain infinite happiness.
2. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you lose little or nothing.
3. If you do not believe in God and God exists, you face infinite loss.
4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you gain little or nothing.

However, I know this can potentially have problems. While neither theists nor atheists can provide conclusive empirical evidence for their positions, I find the theistic arguments, such as the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument, to be more convincing and coherent than their atheistic counterparts. In addition to these philosophical arguments, I think it's important to consider the limitations of human knowledge. There are many aspects of reality, such as higher dimensions or the nature of consciousness, that we are still struggling to understand. If a deity exists, it is likely to be a transcendent, complex, and powerful being that could potentially exist beyond the limits of human comprehension. Expecting to fully understand or grasp the nature of such a being using our current level of knowledge might be an unrealistic expectation.

This is an interesting and thought-provoking question you've posed about God's knowledge of propositions and whether this makes Him a contingent being. I'd like to offer a counterargument that addresses some of the assumptions you've made.

So, assuming that I understand your argument/question, I'm going to put it into premises so it's clearer.

1. God knows all propositions.
2. God creates everything that is not Himself, including propositions.
3. Before creating, there were no propositions to be the objects of God's knowledge.
4. Therefore, God only has the essential property of knowing propositions because He created them. If He didn't create them, He wouldn't have this essential property.
5. As a result, God depends on creation to have one of His essential properties.

First, I'd like to challenge the assumption that God creates propositions. It's possible that propositions, as abstract entities or necessary truths, exist independently of God. In this view, God's knowledge of propositions does not depend on His creating them. Instead, He knows them due to their independent existence as necessary truths.

Second, I'd like to emphasize God's timeless nature. The idea of God existing "before" creating propositions is a misunderstanding since "before" implies a temporal relationship. If we consider God to be atemporal, existing outside of time, then His knowledge is not bound by time either. This means that there is no "before" in which He did not have knowledge of propositions.

Taking these points into account, we can construct the following counterargument:

1. God knows all propositions.
2. God exists outside of time (atemporal) and has knowledge that is not bound by time.
3. The idea of God existing "before" creating propositions is a misunderstanding since "before" implies a temporal relationship.
4. Propositions are abstract entities or necessary truths that exist independently of God.
5. God's knowledge of propositions does not depend on His creating them; instead, He knows them because of His atemporal existence and because they independently exist as necessary truths.
6. Therefore, God does not depend on creation to have the essential property of knowing propositions.

By challenging the assumptions that God creates propositions and that there is a "before" in which He did not have knowledge of them, we arrive at the conclusion that God does not depend on creation to have the essential property of knowing propositions.

Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify my position. My intention of this post was not to challenge the faith of believers, but rather to explore the challenges that non-believers and philosophers face in trying to understand the concept of God. I agree that the pursuit of God operates by different standards than empirical science, and that there are domains of discourse and communities of faith where the pursuit of God is intelligible. However, it is also true that even the most devoted religious person may not fully understand God or the reasons why things happen. In fact, different religious leaders may offer different interpretations of tragic events based on their personal interpretations of scripture and religious teachings. For example, following the recent earthquake in Turkey/Syria, I have seen different Islamic preachers offer various explanations for the event. Some have interpreted it as a test of faith and resilience, while others have viewed it as a form of divine punishment or a reminder of the temporary nature of life. Still, others have simply emphasized the importance of trusting in God's plan and refraining from questioning His wisdom. While there may be different interpretations of tragic events like natural disasters, what remains constant is the importance of turning to God and striving to live a life that is guided by moral and spiritual values. The pursuit of God can provide individuals with a sense of purpose, meaning, and connection to something greater than themselves, even if it is not subject to the same standards of evidence and proof as empirical science. My main point is that we as human beings will never be able to fully understand God and my main message is to non-believers who choose not to believe in God because the concept of God does not make sense to them.