Moving on
After much thought I’ve decided to move on even though TP and I have not come to an understanding as to my last post. I will only ask that comments about the necessity of a consistent cosmos as we’ve defined it or on the objectivity of definitions be appended to my last post so as not to distract from the argument in this one.
Keep in mind at this point we are still assuming that the moral law is real.

Premise two part two

One of the chief goals of science is the explaining of apparent violations of natural law
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin and diversity of species with out a violation of natural laws Darwin saw them. The discipline of quantum mechanics came about because of certain anomalies observed in the behavior of electrons. Recently scientists have postulated dark energy to explain the fact that distant stars seem to violate natural law by appearing younger than would be predicted by the expansion of the universe would predict.
Explaining apparent violations of natural law is nothing new for science. It’s what science does. And the consistency problem stands out like sore thumb in this regard. We see apparent violations of moral law everywhere it appears that the innocent are constantly being prosecuted and the guilty prosper.
No one can deny this especially TP who has been know to call God petty and bemoaned the hypocrisy of the United States. Not to mention calling folks like Behe snake oil salesmen. If the moral law is real (something I will address in my next post) then these apparent violators should not exist. Yet not only is evil (as we have defined it) allowed, it flourishes in our universe.

This apparent inconsistency is equivalent of the Double Slit Experiment except it does not require special equipment to observe. The evidence for inconsistency is everywhere that is why the so called problem of evil is such a popular argument against theism.

TP suggested that the only way the cosmos maintained consistency is by being inconstant in much the same way that refrigerators generate heat when keeping things cool.
If this argument is true its reverse is necessarily true namely the only way the Cosmos can allow inconsistency is to compensate with the death (nonexistence) of equal corresponding consistency.

This is what happened in the Christ event. A consistent entity was killed (subjected to nonexistence) to compensate for inconsistency and thus inconsistent entities are allowed to continue exist in our universe.

This a constant theme in the Bible here are a few examples
From 2nd Corinthians
For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
And from Hebrews
But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I could go on but I hope these will suffise.

It’s important to note that just as when a refrigerator generates cold by producing heat an inconsistency canceling Christ event must have certain characteristics. I will share a few to give you an idea what I’m talking about.

1) It must have consistency equal to or greater than the inconsistency to be cancelled. (A small increase in heat will not produce a large amount of cold)

2) It must have a real connection with the phenomena to be canceled. A increase in heat will not cool any thing off unless it is connected in some way

3) The Christ event must be part of the same observable reality as the inconsistency it cancels out. A temperature increase in one location can not be known to cool another are unless we can observe it.

I anticipate much discussion resulting from this post and I’m not sure exactly what direction that discussion will take so I believe I will leave it here and wait TP’s reply. I realize this is a very incomplete picture so feel free to ask for clarifications of my position as needed.
I would only request that if you can think of another way besides a Christ event to cancel out apparent inconsistency you present it here so that we can evaluate it as well.

Peace

Premise two-- part one

2) If the moral law is a real (and it is) and the Christ event did not happen the cosmos is inconsistent with itself.

This premise is really just a restatement of the so called problem of evil in terms that will apply to the scientific neopantheism of folks like Tippler Primrose and TP along with what I hope to show is the only possible solution to the dilemma.

In this formulation of the problem consistency equals goodness and evil is defined specifically as a violation of natural law and the Cosmos is God.

Since this premise is so controversial I will split it into three posts and take it backwards In this post I will deal with the consistency problem after that I will take some time to show that only the Christ event will satisfy as a solution and finally I will endeavor two show that folks like TP are themselves being inconsistent when they deny the reality of the moral law.

The importance of definitions

I believe it is obvious that if the moral law is real the Cosmos appears to be inconsistent (as we have defined it) let me elaborate
We see apparent violations of the moral law all around us every day both in ourselves and in others.

A natural law that is not valid at all times and all places is not a natural law (again as we have defined it).
Or to put it more precisely

To say that X(a law) is not X(invariable under given conditions) is clearly a contradiction and therefore inconsistent. (Once again see our agreed upon definitions)

Since we have already agreed the Cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent we are left with a dilemma. Is the inconsistency in the natural laws that we see all around us inherent in the cosmos itself so that the cosmos itself can not determine that violations of the natural law have occurred or is the Cosmos powerless to prevent them when they happen? If the cosmos is unable to determine a violation has occurred or if the Cosmos is powerless to prevent violations of the natural law when they occur our first premise (The cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent with itself.) is clearly false. As a consequence science and life itself for that matter would be impossible.

Takeing a cue from earlier pantheism (Buddhism) TP has suggested that any violations of the moral law we think we see are only apparent and not actual. Good and evil are mere illusions.
This explanation seems at first glance to have merit and allow us to escape our consistency dilemma. However the statement “Good and evil are mere illusions” is itself a statement of moral imperative equivalent to “apparent Evil is not Evil” and “Apparent Good is not Good”that is accourding to TP not always true (I will elaborate on this point further when I discuss the validity of the moral law.)

I believe the problem with the tactic of claiming that all good and evil are illusions comes into focus when we remember that we have defined evil as violations of natural law (any natural law will do.) If the moral law is real then violations of it are violations of natural law. According to our definition murder and a perpetual motion machine are equally evil.
We live in a world where evil is endemic.
We have only three options to deal with the apparent evil we see everywhere as far as I can tell.

Either

1) The Human mind is not equipped to determine whether an event is or is not a violation of natural law or not and science is impossible because we have no way of predicting the future. Any thing can be expected to happen at any time. Inconsistency rules.
or
2) The moral law is not Natural Law as we have defined it.
or
3) We need to look closer at the Cosmos so we can determine how it can be that an event appears to be evil (as we have defined it) but is not. to resolve the apparent inconsistency and take the cosmos off the hook.

Since I believe option one is unacceptable for both TP and myself. I will concern myself with the other two options in my coming posts.

I hope to demonstrate next that acceptance of the third option makes the Christ event fundamentally necessary.

And finally I think I can demonstrate that the moral law is a real natural law just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

If TP will give me a sign I’ll move on