@harris, your argument seems to be the following.
1. God sends sinners to a place of complete suffering for eternity.
2. God does not love anyone he sends to a place of complete suffering for eternity.
3. Therefore, God does not love sinners.
This argument has a good structure. However, I believe premises one and two are subject to critique. In the following discourse, I use hell to refer to a place of complete suffering.
Premise 1 (part 1).
Biblical teaching (as I understand it) does not hold that God sends sinners to hell. Rather, only non-believing sinners go to hell.
All people today are sinners in that we all sin. However, some no longer include "sinner" as part of their identity. For these, the requirement of the law of God has been fulfilled in us through Christ's fulfillment of the law and innocent death as a sacrifice for the remission of sins for those who believe. "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1, NASB). This means the penalty for sin is not imputed to believers even though they still sin.
This is reiterated in Romans 8:13, "for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live" (NASB). In the first place, this says death (going to hell) is required for those who live according to the flesh (do not have God's Spirit living within them; i.e. are non-believers). In the second place, this says life (being spiritually alive and going to heaven) applies to those who are putting to death the deeds of the body (are being sanctified by the Hold Spirit (God's Spirit); i.e. are believers). Notice this does not say life applies to those who do not sin or who have put to death the deeds of the body (sin). It says "are putting to death" to indicate that believers still sin but are being sanctified.
This part of my counterargument can easily be circumvented by replacing "sinners" with "some sinners" in the argument as outlined above.
Premise 1 (part 2).
There is a significant difference between a 'caused by' relation and a 'dependent on' relation. I claim that a person going to hell is dependent on the manner of God's creation, but is not caused by God; that evil existing in the world is dependent on the manner of God's creation, but is not caused by God; and that a person's salvation is dependent on their belief, but is not caused by their belief.
In this view, God does not send a person to hell. Instead, a person going to hell is a consequence of both (1) the way God created the physical and non-physical parts of creation and (2) the person's rejection of God's offer of salvation through belief in Him. This leads to a host of questions concerning the share of responsibility God and the person have for the person going to hell. Is God responsible at all? Is God fully responsible? Does God revealing Himself to all people absolve Him of responsibility "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (Romans 1: 19, NASB)? But, this is not the place to engage these questions. The point is that, regardless of responsibility, God does not (in this view) cause anyone to go to hell.
This part of my counterargument can also be circumvented by modifying the argument as follows.
1. Some sinners go to a place of complete suffering for eternity.
2. God's love of a person is incompatible with God allowing the person to go to a place of complete suffering for eternity.
3. Therefore, God does not love some sinners.
(The modified) Premise 2.
Emotionally, I get this premise. It makes sense to me that the notion of complete suffering for eternity is a barrier to believing in God's universal and complete love of all. Feeling like this is completely valid!
In my view, God's love is not something we can grasp. There is so much more to God's love than whether He allows us to suffer or to suffer completely for eternity. God gave us free will. God made known to us what is known about God (Romans 1:19, again); He did not make everything about Himself known to us. With this, it makes sense that there are aspects of who He is that we do not know, including aspects of His love for us. I'll try to sketch out a little, here, of how I navigate this particular barrier. Keep in mind, this is my current perspective, not something I assert as absolutely true.
Before creation, is was good for God's glory to increase. The only way for His glory to increase was to create beings imbued with free will. A consequence of free will is the ability to choose to do good and evil. Out of our free will, we have chosen to do evil. A consequence of this is our spiritual death. God gives us the opportunity to become spiritually alive while we are physically alive. This opportunity is universal (is offered to everyone). Through our free will, we choose to accept or reject this offer of spiritual life. In a state of spiritual life, we are able to be directly in the presence of God. In a state of spiritual death, we are not able to be directly in the presence of God. In order to satisfy justice, a person's soul endures forever regardless of whether the person is spiritually alive or spiritually dead at the point of physical death. For a person who dies while spiritually alive, their soul endures forever in heaven, which is in the presence of God. At the point of physical death, a person has no other opportunities to become spiritually alive. Thus, for a person who dies while spiritually dead, their soul endures forever in hell, which is separate from the presence of God. This state of eternal separation from God entails complete suffering for eternity.
This boils down to the following. In order for God's glory to increase, there must be the possibility that some people will act of their own free will first to do evil and second to reject the offer to be spiritually alive. A consequence of this possibility is the possibility that some will completely suffer for eternity.
I have questions about this view, myself. Why must this possibility exist in order for God's glory to increase? Why is (1) God's glory increasing plus this possibility existing or being realized superior to (2) God's glory remaining the same without this possibility? Is it necessary that if a person has free will, then the person must have an eternal soul? If not, what property of justice requires the soul to be eternal even in the case of a person who physically dies while spiritually dead? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I seek answers to these questions.
This response does not refute the modified premise two. Instead, it offers a way of thinking about the larger picture and how this premise fits into it. I welcome discussion on these points in order to better understand the nature of God's glory, justice, free will, and the eternality of souls.
In the end, I believe that God has a morally superior reason to creation us with free will despite the possibility or realization of suffering; that God loves us, and the possibility of suffering is not evidence against His love for us; that God's love is revealed to us by Him and by His offer to freely make us spiritually alive; and that God's love for us is not contingent on whether we accept His offer.