The big question about sin is its existence. Why does suffering exist? In fact, if we include a perfect God, the concept of the ideal would mean no suffering.
But if we didn't include God, the concept of suffering wouldn't exist either. In a universe of immutable and ordered physical laws, the beings that would form from this universe do not generate suffering.
Therefore, the existence of suffering is irrational, both for the existence of God and for the non-existence of God.
Therefore, the only foundation for the existence of suffering is the existence of God, for one simple reason. Thought trumps the existence of laws. How would it be?
In physical laws, the rules for how objects are organized are fixed and cannot be changed. But the mind can imagine the most exotic things, and that escape the rules of the laws of the universe.
See that, if we are beings directly linked to nature, our mind should only think about what nature is, but every human being can imagine things totally outside of what is natural.
Thus, only an entity that has this possibility can develop the possibility of suffering.
A logical rule would be, for example, to analyze death. Death is a constancy among living beings. Thus, it would be entirely rational for evolution to generate the concept that death is extremely acceptable. But that doesn't happen.
Living beings do not accept death. Even though it is a rule included in the chromosomes of living beings. In fact, chromosomes determine the life span of beings. But living beings do not accept death. And that causes suffering. In fact, death is not something necessary, there are animals whose chromosomes do not determine a date for death.
And so, one of the great factors for suffering is linked to death. A system defined in the existing chromosomes in almost all living beings. Which should, in a logical concept, not generate suffering for the chain of the supposed evolution of the species, as it is something like eating, sleeping, breathing. In other words, a natural factor of life, and existing in chromosomal rules, could not generate suffering in the concept of the evolution of species.
The point is that, contrary to the evolution of the species, death generates suffering, and suffering in its basic concept should not exist in a system of evolution of the species.
What comes to the conclusion that the evolution of the species is wrong in the way it is assumed.
But then, why is there suffering? By physical laws, such a factor could not exist, what would exist would be beings that would be programmed and extremely able to do what they were adapted to do. This would be the basic rule of an evolutionary system, linked to physical laws.
But, that's not how it happens. A God who knows all things would need neither living beings nor human suffering. For the characteristic of perfection is the non-existence of imperfection. This is therefore basic. But perfection can imagine imperfection. Imagining imperfection is not being imperfect, it is being beyond perfection. But to practice imperfection is to be imperfect.
Thus, the practice of imperfection, is called the term sin, which most of the time its use is irrational, and full of mysticism. But the correct term is merely error.
A committed error defines the person who practices a violation of the laws of nature, and nature could not accept its existence, in fact a perfect universe would not generate errors.
And at this point something is wrong. As in a universe governed by exact laws, it generates errors in beings that can only exist following these physical laws?
In fact, if there is what is right, on the other hand, the denial of what is right is wrong. Even if the universe is correct, and even in the existence of a perfect God, the imperfect comes into existence, by the mere existence of the perfect, in fact if the perfect exists, the negation of the perfect is the imperfect.
Thus, the universe can hide imperfection, and force beings to be controlled and perfect. In fact, perfection is a control, in which you must follow rules. Imperfection, on the other hand, is extremely variable, and outside the rules.
In physical laws the answers are directed towards a solution. In imperfection, the answers have different and meaningless directions. So, for there to be beings with decision, these beings need to know the negation of perfection.
But once imperfect, if it is contrary to the perfect universe, and so it should not exist. This paradox of the perfect and imperfect, could only be created by something beyond what exists as reality.
In fact, the imagination goes beyond the concepts of reality, and is directed to imaginings that are totally without logic, linked to an irrational randomness.
This tool is closely linked to concepts of choice. A scientist can choose a physical law, which helps an engineer to build an airplane and have it fly by following the laws of aerodynamics.
Choosing not to accept the laws discovered by the scientist, and to create in your imagination mechanisms to make an airplane, is simply to run the risk of being erased from nature, or erasing others.
Thus, the so-called free will is not the possibility of altering the laws of nature, but of choosing to like them or not to like them. If an individual chose to like the laws of perfection of nature, to the detriment of their own wills, which would generate a destructive system, then that individual chose the path of existence. On the contrary, he chose the path of non-existence.
Free will is closely linked to accepting to live in the universe that exists, or not accepting to live in the universe that exists. Never being able to change what exists.
Physical laws will never be changed by human will, but through entropy increase each individual defines their free will. The greater the increase in entropy, that is, the disorder generated by the individual, the greater the definition that he is opting for non-existence, and the greater the search to reduce entropy, the greater the chance that this individual is seeking the path of existence.
But free will will never change the law of entropy. In this way, free will is directly linked to the person himself, and not to another person, or to another object.
So the existence of suffering is linked to the observation of imperfect beings. The search for perfection is in the search for the reduction of suffering in the universal concept. Imperfection, on the other hand, generates the expansion of suffering in a universal way.
The reduction of local suffering is not perfection, when local suffering generates general suffering. And general suffering is closely linked to non-compliance with the physical and biological rules of nature.
And this choice is closely linked to the observation of consequences, and the search for acceptance of the universe, and the best way to adapt to physical laws, to reduce the speed of entropy.
What is expected in logic, is that those who decide not to accept universal laws, receive what they chose. And those who accept universal laws, too. At that moment, suffering will cease to exist, as the systematic search will be to follow the norms of permanence of life, since those who opted for the norm of non-permanence of life, received their choice.
When it happens? This depends on the time it takes for you to no longer need this effect of observing the destructive, to choose the path of existence and non-existence.