Personally, I would never worship a god that would send someone to an eternal lake of fire to be burned forever, a simple fact of nonbelief, when that deity knows what it would take to convince every single person of this planet. That is cruel, it is inhumane, it is not kind, not generous, and that god is not worthy of worship.

You're assuming the conclusion by defining God as the ground of goodness, truth, and love, then saying worship is automatically the fitting response. But that's exactly what we're debating. You still have to establish that this being exists, that those attributes actually belong to it, and that they make worship morally appropriate. And the drowning analogy doesn't work if the same being supposedly has unlimited knowledge and power. A human rescuer may be unable to save everyone, but an omnipotent God supposedly isn't. If God knows exactly who will suffer, knows exactly what would convince every sincere nonbeliever, and has the power to provide that evidence without sacrificing any greater good, then allowing people to face eternal punishment for nonbelief raises a much stronger problem than simply asking why a human couldn't save everyone. I'm not demanding that God follow my preferred timeline. I'm questioning whether a being who creates people with different evidence, knows exactly what would convince them, and then eternally punishes some for failing to believe is actually worthy of worship. If worship is supposed to be based on goodness, then calling God “good” doesn't settle the question. His actions have to be consistent with the goodness you're using to justify worship in the first place.

The percentage doesn't actually matter to my argument. Whether Hell means eternal torture or annihilation, the question remains whether a God who knowingly creates people, knows exactly what would convince them, and still allows them to face an irreversible punishment for nonbelief is worthy of worship. And saying “God is the source of goodness, therefore whatever God does is good” is circular. You're using God's supposed goodness to prove that God's actions are good. If you want to establish that God is worthy of worship, you still need to show that his actions are consistent with the goodness you're attributing to him.

You're treating sufficient evidence as if it means coercing someone's will, but those aren't the same thing. God could provide enough evidence for someone to rationally believe without forcing them to love or worship him. And I don't need to claim perfect knowledge to question whether a punishment is just. If your defense is simply “God is infinite, so finite minds cannot judge him,” then you have also removed your ability to demonstrate that his actions are good. You can't use God's unknowability to dismiss criticism and then use God's supposed goodness as evidence that he deserves worship. The question isn't whether I can fully audit an infinite being. It's whether the reasons you've given actually establish that this being is worthy of worship. So far, they don't.

You're conflating respecting someone's freedom with withholding sufficient evidence. God could reveal himself clearly without forcing anyone to worship him. Knowing that God exists does not logically force someone to love or obey him, just as knowing someone exists doesn't force you to like them. And I'm not claiming my moral standard is automatically objective. I'm saying that if you want to call God “good,” then goodness must mean something beyond “whatever God does.” Otherwise, “God is good” becomes meaningless because any action God takes is defined as good by definition. That doesn't demonstrate that God is worthy of worship; it only assumes it.