Good refutation, however, how do you know that the minor sins that most of us do would, when tallied next to the goods we do, cause disasters rather than strings of bad luck? I figure that, say, stealing a dollar off a friend's coffee table can't cause that much disaster, and if that's the worst someone's done, then how can we say that person will cause a real disruption in the flow of karma?

Another problem with Kharma is whether or not committing a "bad" act to prevent a "worse" act would effect your kharma negatively.  Say by stealing the dollar from you friends table he was no longer able to buy a gun and kill someone...can possible bad effects that are prevented from taking place outweigh what actually does take place?

What it seems you are saying that if a primary cause is present (i.e. a negative action), then the effect will ripen immediately (i.e. horrible death). Since this is obviously not the case, karma does not exist.

I think even a skeptical materialist would find fault with your logic.

A primary cause, for example the seed of an apple tree, cannot produce a sprout by itself– it requires secondary causes (conditions) such as moisture, heat and so forth. And until all the requisite conditions gather, no effect will be produced.

But that does not preclude the possibility that a primary cause, such as a seed, can exist - and that time can elapse before the requisite conditions gather – and an effect is produced. For example, I can have a packet of seeds in my pocket for years and they are no less potent than the day I bought them.

Likewise, your presentation – as a consequence of karma existing everyone would die immediately because of their bad actions (and the absurdity that this obviously does not happen) – supposes that karma operates exclusive of secondary causes. But until you qualify this, your argument is insufficient to thoroughly negate karma, and cosmic enlightenment for that matter.

Happy thinking!

Alec