Resolved: If God exists, God would have sufficient reason to send people to hell

My opponent's forfeit is noted. I thank my opponent for this debate. I was running out of characters in the last round, so before I close I would like to address one argument that my opponent made more thoroughly. My opponent claimed that the God I presented was logically impossible, and therefore since this debate assumes he exists, then he is "above" logic. My opponent pointed out no such contradiction to back up his statement. However, let's assume for a second that he is right. If God is above logic and is able to act in an illogical way, how would my opponent be able to affirm the resolution? My opponent said that God would send people to hell to punish them for their sins, but if God acts irrationally, then what warrant do we have to believe that he would punish people for their sins? Even if it is logical that a just being would punish people for wrongdoings (although he would not have them tortured or have the punishment go on forever), we have no way to know that an illogical God would do that. Far from supporting his case, saying that God is above logic refutes his own case. Also, even if we assume that God's illogicality does not refute his own case, we would still not classify God the way that we do, due to the semantic principle I presented. Humans classify things logically, so we would classify God as a being of so-and-so characteristics in a logical way, despite the assumption that God is above logic. Now that I have addressed that point more thoroughly, let's review what happened in this debate. I used a logical semantic principle (p) to present propositions p1-p5. They were as follows: p1: A morally flawless being would not torture anyone for any period. p2: A just being would not punish one eternally for the sins committed during a brief lifetime, but would proportion the punishment to the offense. p3: A being that is righteous would not punish anyone eternally for unavoidable lack of belief. p4: A merciful being would not be unforgiving forever to those who've offended it. p5: A loving being would not bring about and perpetuate the suffering of those it loves. My opponent objected that the definition of hell does not necessitate that hell is a place of torture, said that hell is not for eternity, claimed that p3-4 were not valid because God did not make people worship him, and said that p5 simply was not true (and gave the example of a father punishing his son to illustrate this. I argued that the scriptures that talk on the subject of hell make it clear that hell is a place of torture, argued that scriptures do advocate punishment for eternity (and noted that my definition of hell necessitates such a concession from my opponent), claimed that my opponent's objections to p3-4 were irrelevant (but conceded that those propositions are more about a minor detail of hell than the concept of hell itself), and defended p5. Thus, all my propositions stand (although I only really needed one). Due to p2, my opponent's argument that God would send people to hell as punishment for wrongdoings fails. If my opponent had any chance to win, he would either have to reinforce his claim that hell is not everlasting or argue that a just being could punish people forever. He did neither. Therefore, I have successfully negated the resolution.