That there “has to be …more” is simply fallacious logic, wishful thinking, a misleading trope.

If one wants to understand the physical universe, she must understand statistics. Randomness underlies fundamentally all events in the physical world, and the aggregation leading to phenomena in the region of space/time that our science allows us to explain and predict as “laws” are relatively few — and subject to revision and change as physics advances. As N N Taleb points out, we fool ourselves if we claim to be able to predict events in the domain of human activity.

Genuine equality exists only in the domain of mathematics.

The nine-year old boy and the nine-year old girl are points on a frequency distribution that is inevitable, the results of aggregations of random events and, I firmly believe, personal decisions. The Tao (and statistics) explain and predict the randomness; ethics, education, mores, and social/economic mechanisms explain other influences. Advancing technology allows our society to shift median and mean to the perceived, better, upper end, and to make the standard deviation smaller, but “justice”, a artifice itself, is not a measure of those shifts.

Not all is random. One should remember: the girl’s mother made an individual decision that led to one-half of the circumstances of this story; another individual decision led to “no family”. Individual decisions, too, led to the circumstances of the other half of the story. I attach no moral judgement to either set, but, if decisions are judged by their outcomes, one set is undoubtedly better.

Yes, “heaven” can be real. As others have proposed, the choices that allow its creation are available to us all.