Your grasp of logic is tenuous.
The ability to answer a portion of a two part question does not automatically equate to the ability to answer the second part. Knowing that breaking a law invokes a penalty is not synonymous with knowing what that penalty is. To use an example from the world of cops and speeders, you may know that going 75 mph in a marked 40 mph zone will cost you if Joe Cop samples you with his radar tongue, but it does not mean that you know what the fine schedule is.
Proving your knowledge of the one part by your statement does not equate to verification that you know the unsupported-by-evidence-answer to the remainder since proof of such knowledge has not been entered on the record.
The as-yet-unanswered question remains: “What is the penalty for sin?”
You must be real fun when called to testify...
“The as-yet-unanswered question remains: “What is the penalty for sin?””
You don’t know?