> I have no idea what he meant. I do not have ESP, and given that Chesterton is long dead, it probably wouldn't be effective even if I did.

An author writes to convey information and meaning. One of the main responsibilities a reader has is to find out what the author meant by his words. [1] I don't think one needs ESP or to interview the author personally to find out the meaning he was trying to convey in his writing.

> All I know is what the text says.

What the text says is what the author says, his meaning.

In this case, you are interpreting "fact of sin" to mean "as if there were only one.". That's quite an uncharitable and illogical interpretation. I don't think Chesterton thought that there exists only one fact about sin. It's common sense that there is more than one fact about such a broad topic as sin.

> the idea that "sin exists" is another one of those phrases that is cunningly designed to make you think that it means something, and that you understand what it means, when in fact it is utter nonsense (because of its ambiguity).

Webster says sin is "an offense against religious or moral law". Since you're not religious, let's go with offense against moral law.

What's moral law? Webster says "a general rule of right living"

So do offenses against rules of right living exist?

A man rapes and murders a person. Was that an offense against right living? I would say so. It was a sin. Rape and murder as well as other sins have been committed throughout history, are currently being committed and will be committed in the future. Sin exists.

> LOL. Can you show me any evidence that there is an afterlife?

I challenged your claim that William Lan Craig is a charlatan and you change the topic?

I don't have time to fully answer your challenges. I'll just leave some references. [2]

> Read Carrier's "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus" and then come back and we can talk.

I may just do that. Thanks.

While we're on the subject of evidence, I will leave with these thoughts.

Science is wonderful and is capable of explaining many truths about the universe and has resulted in much good. But it has its limits. It can not speak to questions of morality, the human condition, etc [3]

Obviously, there is a large component of faith involved in Christianity or any religion or spiritual matters. But I always argue that it is the nature of reality that everyone is required to live by faith [4]

[1] Fundamental Factors of Comprehension in Reading (Davis, 1944):

http://www.iapsych.com/wmfhcaarchive/LinkedDocuments/DAVI11....

- Ability to select the appropriate meaning for a word or phrase
in the light of its particular contextual setting

- Ability to determine a writer's purpose, intent, and point of
view, i.e., to draw inferences about a writer

[2]

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/how-do-we-kno...

https://carm.org/about-jesus/is-there-historical-evidence-of...

https://www.icr.org/

https://www.amazon.com/evidence-that-demands-verdict-life-ch...

[3]

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

"Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith."

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/science_religion

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29710355