Argument from Conscience

[Kingpin]

Chad, Yes!  That is exactly the point!  If there is no transcendent point of moral authority, then morals are completely relative then there is no "evil" and everyone loses their right to pass judgment on anything.  They may have an opinion, but that cannot logically condemn it without assuming moral superiority.

Clarification please.  Are you really agreeing with Chad and/or are you being a little facetious?

I can read this as saying, there is transcendence involved but it rests with God, not in us.  Therefore, while we all are entitled to our opinion (and know what the moral import of an action would be if we did it), we can't any of us logically condemn another because the transcendence rests with God alone.  In essence, if the person performing the act you find reprehensible isn't responding to God's inner guidance, why on earth would he respond to your's?

No I was agreeing with Chad.  For those that hold to no higher moral standard than self (moral relativism), you cannot logically condemn any action of another because they are simply adhering to their own morality.  If you do condemn the act you are then claiming moral superiority.  So if morals are relative then there is no good or evil as those terms become relative and ultimately meaningless.  

This is where the argument from evil and suffering falls apart because in order truly call something evil and discuss it with others and appeal that you cannot believe in God because of the existence of evil in this world, you are invoking a moral authority that transcends humanity, but that is what you are trying to disprove.