I've heard that argument before. I have a hard time with it because I can't imagine anyone, upon learning for certain that God actually exists, choosing to be outside his presence. Who would stick it out in Hell for all eternity instead of just admitting he was wrong and coming back to God? Dying and finding out firsthand that Hell is actually there would be pretty undeniable proof of God's existence.
Think outside your frame for a second, okay?
To whit: What if you find an eternity Hell more palatable to you than being eternally in proximity with God?
According to basic Christian scripture, God is like an all-consuming fire. He does not foster lies or illusion. He is merciful but also just, terrifyingly so. All of your pretenses are stripped bare in the presence of such a person. You see yourself exactly as you are, and any lies you have fabricated about yourself, to make you smarter, stronger, wiser, more loving, kinder, better than you are, will all be immediately burned away in the flames of such a bright and perfect holiness. And it's going to hurt; I am not kidding about how painfully searing it will be. I've experienced a lot of psychological growth and increasing awareness in my life and it was absolutely painful for me to confront these things in me; it was very much like getting burned.
Can you accept being an imperfect, flawed, puny, senseless, limited, sullied human being next to a being so bright... or would it be something you would loathe and despise because you are unwilling to be honest about who you are and what you can NEVER be regardless of your petty aspirations? Knowing you are not in charge of your own fate and that your life rightfully belongs to someone other than you and you really "can't" be "your own person"?
(note: "you" meant in the general sense, I'm making a case here...!)
I've mentioned before that the simplest analogy I've seen occurs at the end of CS Lewis' "The Last Battle," where Narnia is destroyed. All creatures are streaming through the final door, where Aslan sits, and when the creatures look at him, one of two things happen: Either they look upon him and respond with love and longing and those creatures enter the door into paradise; the others look upon Aslan with fear and hatred because he threatens everything they are and instead run off into the dark never to be seen again.
The answer to your question, in a nutshell, of "Who would ever think to reject heaven and embrace hell?" is "People who would see the true heaven AS Hell and the true Hell as Heaven in comparison." That's who.
People who do not get a good sense of who they are in this life and end up finally face to face with God have a lot to process in the blink of an eye, as all of their illusions are stripped bare. if God has become the antithesis of all you are as a human being, then you're going to reject him even if you SEE him... and perhaps ESPECIALLY because you've seen him.
If I died, went to Hell and realized I'd been wrong about God my whole life, I'd pretty quickly repent and want to come back into God's presence.
You would, if your decision was entirely rational.
But it's not.
It's going to be a heart decision, not a head decision.
Can you spend eternal proximity to God or to Hell?
Which one will be more palatable?
As I said, if you're not aligned with God in your heart and center of your being, Hell might easily be more palatable.
The only reason anyone would "choose not to be in God's presence" would be due to erroneous disbelief in God--a finite sin and an honest mistake for which an eternally loving and forgiving God would surely forgive all of us misguided atheists (once we reached the afterlife and realized we'd been wrong all along.)
If someone has trouble finding God during their human life because of an honest matter of intellectual integrity, I would expect God to be big enough to handle... and the truth is evident when they finally DO see God... much as Thomas doubted but then as soon as he got the data he needed, he knelt before Jesus and said immediately, "My lord and my God." His heart was right, so when his head caught up, his true affections were evident.
Come to think of it, isn't belief/disbelief involuntary? I've never seen anyone successfully argued into or out of belief in God because it's an experiential thing that can't be explained in purely logical terms. In fact, if I could, I would probably choose to believe in God because I imagine it would make my life feel more purposeful.
Now you are getting into the meat of it.
Christianity states both -- it tries to hold people accountable for their beliefs (in terms of doling out punishment), while at the same time there are doctrines that state that without God influencing them, no one can come to him. We even see this embodied in the person of Pharaoh, who hardens his heart against Moses and God and yet whose heart God then hardens so that Pharaoh might not "wimp out later" just out of fear. Elsewhere the Scripture talks about various leaders to be "raised up" merely so that God's power could be wielded against them later; they sound like strawmen God created just to knock them down at his convenience and for his purposes.
Martin Luther made a big deal of this end of the doctrine and it was involved in the split between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Unfortunately, I can't do that, because God simply doesn't make coherent sense to me. If I don't even have voluntary control over whether or not I believe, how can I be morally judged for disbelief and sent to Hell?
That's one of the arguments on the side of "I can't be God's puppet, or it wouldn't be fair for me to be damned to hell."
That sounds like a pretty outlandish fringe argument, as far as Christian circles go. Suggesting that man is not inherently sinful and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins, contradicts the most basic fabric of the Christian faith. I'd hesitate to call such a belief system "Christianity" at all.
How immersed are you in the church and popular religious discussion? You sound like you have not been doing a basic cursory reading.
Christianity Today has covered aspects of that ongoing debate periodically in the last ten years.
It does sound like you comprehend what a BIG deal it is to the faith, however, if some people would push that not all men are "inherently sinful" and thus don't NEED a savior to avoid being damned.
In any case, you know as well as I that the definition of Christianity is determined by whoever has control over the doctrines.