BROADCASTS.com

In this episode, I lay out two fairly comprehensive arguments, one against annihilationism and one against eternal conscious torment, noting interesting parallels in their internal logical structure. Both arguments begin with some intuition about justice or fairness whose violation incurs unwelcome consequences for God's goodness, with attempts to avoid these violations also incurring negative consequences for God's goodness. The conclusion that this "meta-argument" tends toward is that both annihilationism and eternal conscious torment should be rejected in favor of universal reconciliation.

P.S. While this episode is listenable, I apologize for the poor audio quality. I also misspeak confusingly at 9:56, saying that an annihilationist could attempt to say that annihilation does not represent finite punishment (which is not a view I would argue against; i.e., I think annihilation amounts to an infinite punishment). I really meant to say that an annihilationist could attempt to say that annihilation does not represent infinite punishment; i.e., the annihilationist could attempt to say that annihilation is in its way a finite sentence or penalty, a view which I go on to argue against. I apologize again for the confusing language and hope everything is clearer in its overall context.