2. God is the ultimate source of flourishing.
4. From 2*, if God loves the unrepentant and knows that they cannot possibly flourish in a robust sense, then God will act to prevent their languishing.
5. There are two ways to prevent this languishing: (1) Remove their free will and force them to love him, or (2) annihilate them.
6. Losing one's free will is a fate worse than annihilation.
7. So, God annihilates the finally unrepentant.
This argument in some ways brings to mind ideas that C.S. Lewis entertains in The Great Divorce. But more on that in a future post on the subject.
But suppose I'm the communist, Stalin. Might the act of annihilating me be an act of love towards someone else such that God might do it?
Having few Calvinist bones in my body (i.e. zero), I believe God treats none of his creatures as mere means (nor would he). But God would not be using me as a mere means if he annihilated me, so that line of response won't work.
We can admit that surely someone else's ceasing to experience the pain I'm causing them and instead experiencing tranquility would be good for them. I think the proper thing to say is that God could just as well isolate me from the ones I'm harming while still willing what is good for me as well. And it is surely plausible that it would not only be good for them but also good for me to be isolated from them (for it would be good for me do something other than hurting them). Suffice it to say for now that I think God's nature is such that he wills only what is good for each of his creatures, so annihilating any of them is not a viable option for God. Whatever hell amounts to, though unpleasant, it must be a product of not only divine justice but divine love for its inhabitant. But it would be good to have an argument for these latter claims.