I do not disagree. Perhaps it might have been better if I had said that good and evil are illustrative of just some of many insurmountable philosophical and ethical quandaries that confront unbelievers.
For starters, since atheists are know-it-alls who tacitly assume exhaustive, universal knowledge, I would like to see Sikora give some account of ANY of the abstract, invariant, universal laws that he finds operative in his finite brain and which are on display in his writing. Since he does not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, what ground does he have for these laws he is using to try to explain the material, ever-changing particular facts of a world governed by chance that he posits in an effort to remain autonomous from God?
Cordially,
I would like to see that also!
Yes, even omniscience, so they can stand in judgment upon almighty God as they knew, and He did not, what the outcome would be for the actions of the Giver of Life in cleaning the Canaanites house (like maybe saving the innocent babes from becoming like their parents, and below.) They complain about God allowing evil in the world, and then complain when he stops an a terminally degenerate nation from replicating itself more. Implacable.
We need to ask Sikora a simple question: If the world is governed by chance, how do laws arise? By accident? And then: If law is "accidental," then how can it be law? And if there is no law, then how can the world be the way it is, and not some other way?
I wonder if he would understand such questions. He is evidently no systematic thinker, rather a sort of "machine" or mechanistic thinker of a type to which David Bohm alluded, in Wholeness and the Implicate Order [1980]:
Consider ... an attempt to assert that all of man's actions are conditioned and mechanical. Typically, such a view has taken one of two forms: Either it is said that man is basically a product of his hereditary constitution[***], or else that he is determined entirely by environmental factors.[***] However, one could ask of the man who believed in heredity determination whether his own statement asserting this belief was nothing but the product of his heredity. In other words, is he compelled by his genetic structure to make such an utterance? Similarly, one may ask of the man who believes in environmental determinism whether the assertion of such a belief is nothing but the spouting forth of words in patterns to which he was conditioned by his environment. Evidently in both cases (as well as in the case of one who asserted that man is completely conditioned by heredity plus environment) the answer would have to be in the negative, for otherwise the speakers would be denying the very possibility that what they said could have meaning.... [p. 65f][***] Don't ask anything about heredity (DNA) or the environment — you know, stuff like how did they arise, why are they the way they are and not some other way, etc.??? — they are "just there," evidently induced out of a magician's magic hat....
I hate to be unkind. But I do believe it is fair to say this Sikora fellow is a smug, self-satisfied moron. He went to college and managed to be made stupid....