Christian belief in eternal torment is indefensible.

"God "knowing" that most would reject is not what caused them to reject, so God doesn't bear responsibility . . ." Okay, let me try to make it clearer. How many people would end up in hell if God had not created humans and created hell? ZERO! Let me give you a story to show the problem. Suppose when my children were young, I gave them a loaded gun to play with, and one was killed. My defense would be, "I am not the one who pulled the trigger, so I am not responsible." Is that legitimate? You would be appalled by my response. I knew the danger, yet went ahead with it. God knew the plan would fail for most of humanity, yet went ahead with it. You can say this was not God's plan, but God knew it would happen. God should have destroyed Adam and Eve before they reproduced billions of offspring, where most are destined to eternal torment. In fact, God should have destroyed Eve in front of Adam so he did not follow her into sin. God's "perfect plan" is an utter failure and should have been stopped long ago. Every minute God delays the return of Jesus results in more people headed to eternal torment. Stop the avalanche! You can ramble on, and on, and on . . . about human responsibility, but this is a waste of space because I already agreed that humans bear SOME responsibility. According to you, God is omnipotent yet not responsible for anything that goes wrong. Don't you see the obvious problem with that? And trying to compare human parents responsibility about their children's actions to God's responsibility is also faulty. Human parents have limitations, while God is omnipotent. If you want to use "logic" to compare, then humans have limited responsibility while God has unlimited responsibility. You spend a great deal of time comparing God's punishment to our justice system, and to parents disciplining children. Wow, talk about comparing apples and oranges! How does our legal system keep people conscious throughout eternity for the sole purpose of tormenting them endlessly? Why compare a spanking that hurts for a few minutes or grounding that results in temporary loss of privileges to eternal torment? When you are going to make a comparison, at least try to make them somewhat similar. Then again, maybe it is unfair of me to say this because NOTHING in our world compares to eternal torment. There are graphic documentaries on television about war, starvation, disease, crime, child abuse, and other suffering. Many get very upset and cannot watch these disturbing programs. While these programs are disturbing, we can be comforted by the fact that all the suffering is TEMPORARY; it will end someday. Many Christians, who cannot even stomach watching these disturbing shows, believe and preach the doctrine of endless torment, which is far worse than any temporary hardship today. Is there a section of their brains they shutoff to keep them from connecting the dots? "They have sinned against an eternal God, and the consequence os (sic) sin are eternal." By that "logic" you could justify child abuse. When a small child rebels against a big strong parent, the child deserves to be hit extremely hard for rebelling against a strong person. And it looks like you missed my point about the significance of evidence for or against God. You admitted that "sincere seekers of truth" have different beliefs. When people are sincere and do not believe in Christianity, how are they responsible for honestly rejecting what they do not believe to be true? You can claim that the evidence is strong, but that is your bias showing through. You say, "God cannot be proved to them whose heart and mind are closed to the evidence, but it convinces many others." This is an unfair assertion that only non Christians are biased. Many Christians say things like, "My life would be so empty if I did not have God." This is outright admission of a blatant bias. People hate to face the possibility that their existence will end someday, so they readily accept the promise of eternal life. I was a Christian for many years, and wrote a lot about theology. Then I decided to write a book defending Christianity from the critics. After long and hard research, I realized I could not refute the critics, and saw that the most famous apologists did not respond well either. Sorry, don't even try to say the evidence for Christianity is conclusive. If the evidence were conclusive we would not call it FAITH. "God didn't make it this way, so he's not to blame. He provided a remedy that will one day permanently fix this problem." But most reject this fix. Not much of a remedy when the vast majority does not get fixed. You say people have plenty of evidence, but they choose to reject it. You also say people prefer sin to Christianity. These are attempts to sidestep legitimate problems with your belief system. But you prefer to deny that there are any legitimate reasons to reject Christianity. This doesn't make real debate possible. So far, you have done nothing but preach to the choir. Christians who already agree with you, and don't want to question their beliefs, will continue to agree with you. But non Christians, as well as Christians who have been wondering about these issues already, could not possibly be swayed by your presupposition that God must be right and we cannot question God.