Is Believing in God Irrational? - Ch7 Hell

This post is inspired by Amy Orr-Ewing's book "Is Believing in God Irrational?" Chapter 7. Most of it is her ideas, some are mine. Please see all the chapters in the post "Is Believing in God Irrational?" for the full picture.

"If God is so loving and relational, why would he go ahead and create [humans] if he knew people would end up in Hell?"
The question of why God can't just forgive us all and send us all to heaven is dealt with partially in my post 'A full view of free will', and briefly in section (4) of 4 atheist talks. Honestly though I maybe should give it another go considering it seems to be Dawkins main argument against Christianity.

1) Pascals wager
Pascals wager is an argument formulated by the mathematician Pascal that is often erroneously used to support believing in God. It presents a decision matrix of belief/disbelief in God correlated with whether or not he really exists. Pascal points out that to believe is safer than to not believe. In the case of believing, not much bad happens to you either way, whether God is true or not. In the case that you don't believe, you're fine if He doesn't exist, but you're in trouble if he does. Therefore, it is safer to believe in God (that's how most people phrase the argument).
a) This is NOT an argument to believe in God. I expect no one to simply see this argument and decide to believe in God. As J.P Moreland said in a book of his I'm reading, if I offered you a million dollars to believe that a pink elephant was sitting next to you, you could not do so no matter how hard you wanted to. (This depends on your definition of belief and your ability to purposely corrupt your mind). The same can be said for Allah, and I'm not believing in him. What it does show is that you can't really leave this issue alone. If God doesn't exist - fine whatever. But you'd really better make sure he doesn't or else you may pay for it dearly, for all eternity. Not to mention you'll miss out on the biggest, longest, most fun party in history.
b) You may think you'll experience more suffering in this life if you choose God, and this might be true. I'm not claiming anything will be great. But Christianity claims to solve pretty much all of life's problems, make you content in all circumstances, always rejoicing but mourning with those who mourn, etc. It's not a gavel slamming works-based rule-based religion.

2) Some humans will believe in God and some won't. Some will go to hell and some to heaven. So the question is would it have been better to not create humans? Amy adresses this by saying that it's impossible to compare not existing to existing. She quotes C.S. Lewis saying that you can't ask whether it would be better 'for me' to not exist, because there is no me.
a) In the grand scheme of things the overall goal is to give God glory. That will happen no matter where people go.
b) God loves all people and wants them to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). However, if he were to orchestrate it such that everyone got saved, some people would cease to exist on the same level. Sin is of the heart, it is a decision. If God were to control you down to that level, you would no longer be making decisions of your own. Imagine that all your thoughts, desires, and decisions were not your own. What would be left? You can't sit outside your body and look at the things God is making you do and say "Aw! Not fair!" because you yourself will be making the decisions - just controlled by God.
So what should God do - kill you by controlling you or give you a chance to come freely?

3) Orr-Ewing poses love as the motivation for justice - that when you see people you care about wronged you want to see the wrongdoer punished. Therefore, love for people is the motivation for hell.
a) I'm not so sure I agree with this. First of all it is mainly based on feelings, which ought to not have much weight. I can feel a lot of wrong things but it doesn't mean I should make conclusions about them.
b) Second, the only way I can see that love motivates justice right now is that punishing someone ultimately helps them and directs everyone involved towards God by setting the example. The book of Hosea describes how God lets bad things happen to his bride Israel so that she will come back to him.
c) Hell and other punishment is not exactly positive action. Not following God results in death, just by the way the world is made. A society that has no moral code has no intrinsic crime prevention and suffers greatly. Hell is often describes as merely separation from God. This is extremely painful because you are separated from all that is good, all comfort, everything you are designed to want and feel, and instead you feel it's absence - pain, suffering, thirst, dysfunction, slavery, etc. I'm not sure I agree completely that Hell is only a separation from God, but it works for now.

4) To end, Amy quotes C.S. Lewis:
"In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: 'What are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven [they will not accept it]. To leave them along? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does." C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain p. 130.