Uploaded October 2022 | Updated September 2026, 5 hours ago

---

I’m joined by Counter Apologist and Ryan from Real Atheology to discuss eternal conscious torment.

First, we take a look at the views of William Lane Craig, who famously denies the possibility of an actual infinite in the context of the kalam, yet seems to affirm the existence of an actual infinite in his defense of everlasting torment. Craig grants that finite sins merit finite punishment. But since rejecting a relationship with God is *not* a finite sin, eternal conscious torment is justified. (Craig seems to hold that our *guilt* is an actual infinite, not our punishment, which is a potential infinite.)

We also touch on free will, postmortem salvation, the rejection of God, religious diversity, universalism, guilt, and David Bentley Hart's case that everlasting torment is morally indefensible.

Clarification: When it comes to rejecting God, I used the words “ignorance or limitations/imperfections” several times (e.g., “No one would reject a relationship with a being of perfect love without some ignorance or imperfection”). “Ignorance” in this context would include lack of knowledge of God’s existence or his exact nature. “Imperfection” or “limitation” was usually intended to refer to our rational faculties. So if a person is rejecting a being of perfect love, I think that person must be lacking information or ability to assess that information, most likely. As David Bentley Hart argues, “no rejection of God on the part of the rational soul is possible apart from some quantum of ignorance and misapprehension and personal damage.”

https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

Subscribe to Real Atheology: youtube.com/realatheology

Subscribe to Counter Apologist: youtube.com/CounterApologist

Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/RealAtheology twitter.com/CounterApologis twitter.com/waldenpod

My Hell playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgCsHWkb9NYtUnr7hNK_ar8MEJiosUcDm