Ok the topic of damnation exposes a mentality that I strongly despise, and I am afraid that I will now have to address it. Namely, it is the utilitaristic vision of God.
You are no better than Pascal (a guy who had no faith and only wanted to get a reward, as if God is some kind of quiz game) when you say "if God existed, He would prevent us from doing mistakes". God is NOT at the service of the single individual. God is the perfectly impartial being whose job is overseeing the UNIVERSE. Your petty individual gievances are not something He can concern Himself with: that's the reason why I always get mad at my grandmother when she says "I am going to pray God so that He will help you pass your exam".
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that God is a benevolent being. But I find it absurd to think that a being that is above our plane of existance, a being who created the universe and who keeps it in balance, can go out of His way to make sure that I pass my exam. Of course He gave us something called coscience which, for people like me (people who believe), is a way to hear His voice when we stray from the right path. And yes, that can also manifest in the form of guilt if a spend a day slacking off instead of studying. But if I deliberately decide to ignore such guilt, if I decide to slack off instead of studying, then it is absolutely ridiculous to think that God will put in my brain a knowledge I did nothing to deserve, just because my grandma said a prayer.
There is also another fact: there are seven billions of people in this world. How could God get involved in the interest of the single? I mean, what helps and favors Dude A might damage Dude B: God is impartial by definition, so it is idiotic to think that He would side with either. Let's say Dude A and Dude B both partecipate in a race: if Dude A thanks God because he won, should Dude B curse Him because he lost? The act of taking sides, the act of favoring who does us a favor, is a typical human act. But God is above humans, so he takes no sides, and is impartial towards men: therefore, you cannot apply your utilitaristic logic to Him.
And there is yet another fact: we humans are arrogant. Since we have intellect, we like to think the universe was built around us, that everything is always about us. But guess what? That is not the case. Let's take for example the San Andreas Fault: given the way the world works, such a fault MUST exist. It is inevitable, it is part of the structure of our world. And such a massive fault will keep on accumulating energy, but energy cannot be accumulated forever: the laws of physics tell us that sooner or later the fault will snap. And when that happens, I already know there will be people who will say "if there was a God, He would not allow so many people to die in a earthquake". But that's an idiotic thing to say: a fault is DESTINED to snap and cause a earthquake, that's how the laws that regulate this world go. It is a direct consequences of the same laws that make it possible for you to walk. So if your house is destroyed in the process, it is your fault for building it right on top of such a dangerous, uh, fault (pun not intended).It is absolutely nonsensical to think that God would go out of His way and alter the laws of physics just because some idiots built two massive cities on top of one of the world's largest faults.
And don't you think that my mentioning the lwas of physics is a contraddiction: as I mentioned in a previous post, I strongly believe that science and faith can coexist. Science tells you HOW things happen, faith tells you WHY they happen. I apply this reasoning to evolution as well, since people mentioned it. Creatures did evolve, but this does not mean there's no God, and I actually find it silly how for so may years the Church has tried to silence scientific progress.
So yeah, God is the referee in this game we call life. He made the rules, and He is not going to change them just because some idiot built a city on top of a fault. Or right next to a volcano, to make an italian example. And He does not take sides, because He is the ref, and the ref does not take sides. Applying an utilitaristic logic to this makes no sense IMO.