Also, another point about debunker's ethical view, as I believe this is concerned with ethics:
Again enternal soul means eternal abode... God does NOT care == Hell. Questions such as why not make Hell, easier, etc all imply that God should care.
I think the point you are trying to make is that you are trying to distinguish between a morally evil, morally neutral and morally good ground. You are banking on your atheist reader to concede that for God to qualify as an omnibenevolent being, all he must not do is an action that falls under morally evil. Therefore, if God does morally neutral acts, then he may still be an omnibenevolent being. In other words, the only thing stopping God from being omnibenevolent is if he ever commits a morally evil action. So it is left up to the omnibenevolent God which actions he commits as long as they are either morally neutral or morally good. I'm willing to grant you this.
Now, your next step is to classify the absense of caring for those who also do not care as being morally neutral. Another belief that you may hold but which you didn't explicitly mention is that God must be asked for help, and only then will God's refusal to help be classed as morally evil. That is a belief many people hold. You will have come accross this principle in the claim, "God can only forgive those who are repentant".
The reason why you may hold such a belief is easy to see. A lot of the time we may tell people "well you should have asked for help if you needed it" and a lot of the time we have a valid point. However, this only applies to trivial matters, such as when someone needed a lift home from the supermarket. If we know that somebody is about to go for a walk into the woods and we know that on this occassion there are werewolves waiting in the woods, and you know for certain that if this somebody enters the woods, they are not going to come out alive again (at least not as a human) then even if that person does not call out for your help, you would still feel morally obliged to save that person, that is to intervene with your care for that person. But let's make this example more analogous to the God and Hell situation. You suspect that the person actually knows that there are werewolves in the woods and out of stupidity or as a result of some similarly undesirable behaviour, they are still walking into the woods. If one person went out to save that person, and another person sat at home looking out of their window thinking "serves them right for being so stupid", we would much rather praise the person who went out to help and pour scorn on the person who did not care, even accuse them of having a big ego and inconsiderate character. Now imagine that the person has already gone into the woods and is now crying for help. If you do not intervene, they will die. But you know of a quick and easy way to save them and get them out, and it will be of no risk or cost to yourself. If one person saved that person, and another person thought "well they should have seen all the evidence for the werewolves before they went in. They don't deserve a second chance" then we would more likely praise the first person for saving the person who was crying out for help and accuse the second person of having a disgusting and careless disposition. And what about the beautiful things that may result out of helping this person. After you help them, they realize that you are the person that they hated passionately for some reason or another. But now that you showed them mercy and you saved them, they realize you for what you really are, and a meaningful relationship ensues.
In my mercy, I would save even my worst enemy. I don't think I am being stupid. To the best of my knowledge I am being merciful. How can I be stupid in doing this? Have I caused some great harm? No. In fact in all likeliness I have produced a lot of good. If I can see this, why can't God?
Topic: Comments on Hassan V debunker