>> If ALL people have this property, being a sinner, then there is no contrast.
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Oh, give me a break. Are you saying the statements "All people are made
> of atoms" or "All atoms obey the laws of physics" are not meaningful?
> [...] all tangerines are not sinners, so "sin" is less general than "atomic substrate".
There is a difference, all atoms are not in people and not all the laws of physics involve atoms; I was assuming (it's not implicit in the original post I admit) that not only are all people sinners but all sinners are people. But now that I come to think about it, that's equivalent to "all non sinners are non people" so your example of a virtuous tangerine is a little bit of evidence helping to prove the proposition that all people are indeed sinners. Perhaps the original poster was right after all.
>I think you're objecting to the fact that "sin" lacks a clear definition,
No, that's not the problem, nearly all the really important things in life
have no clear definition. My objection is that the idea is pointless.
No, that's not the problem, nearly all the really important things in life have no clear definition. My objection is that the idea is pointless.
John K Clark email@example.com