An original argument against creationism

[jap23]

Which of course raises a very valid counter question: if god wanted to "give" us both good and evil, why did he bind up all knowledge of those two subjects in the fruit of that extra special tree, and then bar his creations from eating from it and imbibing that knowledge?

Death comes through sin (Rom 6:23)- therefore Adam and Eve had to sin for this to be at all possible. Was this a mistake? No- God put the tree right in the middle of the garden next to the tree of life. Every time Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, the tree of knowledge would've been tempting them ALL the time, for ALL their everlasting life... the fact was, they had to eat from the tree. It was God's plan.
It could have just been Adam and Eve just sitting there for eternity- doing the same things like robots with no gratitude towards God, and no comprehension of his goodness... but instead God decided to give them free choice, a chance to understanding his goodness for themselves, and to accept him for themselves.

depends on the bible verses you choose to believe, I suppose

I believe in the whole bible... but I guess you're talking about the bible-verses where God 'sins', such as by the flood and hell? What we forget about the flood was that the world had 120 years to repent. In accordance with Jer 18:7-10, God may have either 'taken back' the threat, or allowed them to come aboard the Ark... on the other hand, 'Hell' is simply a mistake, in summary: the Hebrew word translated 'hell' is 'sheol', which simply means grave, and that is the same for 'Hades' in greek. 'Gehenna' in greek is talking about the valley of hinnom where the trash was burnt- so I guess that is a bit of disgraceful place to die. The idea of a supernatural place of eternal torment is a scare tactic that can't be supported by the bible very well at all.

and on how sure of salvation you are

Rom 8:27 to the end (of ch8) illustrates that theres nothing stopping us from salvation but ourselves.
But I guess you're talking about the truth of God's promise. Given that the vast majority of his promises have already been fulfilled- I think the odds for the kingdom are fairly high! Consider Israel- it was predicted to have been restored (Ezek 38:8, for example) which paves the way for the kingdom to finally come (Zech 14). What we can expect is a massive attack on Israel when 2/3rd will die (Zech 13:8) and 1/2 will be taken captive (Zech 14:1-2) (general information: Ezek 38 & 39; Zech 14 & 13:8)- that's when God will intervene. If Israel is completely conquered, you win; and I'll probably be atheist. (EDIT: but that's not the only reason I'd become an atheist- I'm here to be open)

Another questions comes, then: why hasn't god intervened already? Why would he allow evil and suffering at all? What's the benefit of that?

That question could have been asked at any time in history, right up to the point that he would have had to intervene as soon as it all started! I bet if that was the case, God will then have been criticised because of His submission to our demands- why then should we regard Him if He submitted to us in that way? Also, the fact that the kingdom isn't here yet means we still a chance. If God intervened right at the beginning, it would just be Adam and Eve... and they'd have seen no reason to be grateful whatsoever.
[/quote]"Why would he allow this at all?" The benefit of that is explained in my previous post- once we know evil, we can fully appreciate good when it finally all comes.