That's clearly correct, by definition. However, it begs the question of whether "divine law" can exist without a Divinity. Suppose God is invented by men. Suppose the laws He dictates are also invented. Suppose the term "sin" is used to describe the breaking of these "divine laws".Leontiskos wrote: ↑February 1st, 2022, 2:47 pmThank you. I think that's right.Good_Egg wrote: ↑February 1st, 2022, 9:33 amVery good. I think you've shown that the proposition as stated is false by definition, from the everyday meaning of the words.Leontiskos wrote: ↑January 31st, 2022, 7:23 pm Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.
If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.
.
"Sinh" remains a meaningful and valuable term when used this way.