In a comment, I discussed the idea that Hell can't offer eternal torment as it is unending pain. With only pain, there's no reference for torment since there are no moments of bliss.
We are all familiar with the problem of evil as an argument against an all-good God. What are the typical responses? Oh, it's not logically incompatible because the presence of some evil is necessary for good as a point of contrast. Doesn't Heaven face the same problem? Consider:
Heaven is a paradise. All tears will be wiped away and there will be eternal bliss. Doesn't this necessarily invalidate their argument against the problem of evil? If God can achieve it in Heaven, why not here in this life? If evil isn't a necessary component for the perfect world, the most good world, why is it necessary for good in this one?
Perhaps I can anticipate a response to this: ah, but you forget that those in Heaven will have already existed in this world writhing with evil. Therefore, those in Heaven will have already had the necessary experience with evil! I think you fail to consider the disparity between the length in this world and the next. What is eighty years compared to eternity? It's even less significant than the removal of one grain of sand from a beach. But that's not the biggest problem with this response.
If they are in Heaven and they carry their experiences in this life so as to have the necessary exposure to evil, doesn't that necessitate suffering in Heaven? Not only would they suffer from the memories themselves, they would also be tormented with the knowledge of loved ones in Hell. If God makes them immune to this thought, then he has fundamentally changed them and could have done that from the very beginning. If he wipes their memories or knowledge of their loved ones, then he necessarily removes the experience of evil.
Heaven, as eternal paradise, seems inconsistent with the view of an all-good God on this one facet alone.