Alvin Plantinga has an argument for God’s existence called, “The Argument from Play and Enjoyment”.
Here’s what Plantinga says:
Fun, pleasure, humor, play, enjoyment. (Maybe not all to be thought of in the same way.) Playing: evolution: an adaptive means of preparing for adult life (so that engaging in this sort of thing as an adult suggests a case of arrested development). But surely there is more to it than that. The joy one can take in humor, art, poetry, mountaineering, exploring, adventuring (the problem is not to explain how it would come about that human beings enjoyed mountaineering: no doubt evolution can do so. The problem is with its significance. Is it really true that all there is to this is enjoyment? Or is there a deeper significance? The Westminster Shorter Catechism: the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him (and his creation and gifts) forever.
It seems that we can flip this argument into an argument against the existence of God. If fun is evidence for God’s existence, then boredom is evidence against God. Let’s call it, “The Argument from Boredom Against the existence of God”.