I hope you are not getting to frustrated with this conversation - I think it is a good one, even though it is not necessarily easy to articulate.
nuclear weapons come from the tree of knowledge of good and evil....
True, but that is not my point. All I am saying is - if we never had nuclear weapons, we would be better off. Having discovered nuclear weapons and using them against Japan has not helped us - it has only hurt us. The same is true with the introduction of evil and sin through disobedience.
Exactly...how could he make bad choices from that?
1. He could have disobeyed God by refusing to name the animals. He could have only named his personal favorites. There are many ways Adam could have disobeyed God just involving naming the animals.
2. Adam and Eve were worst off after the Fall, even though God brought something good out of it by teaching us forgiveness.
no it is not...have you understood what I'm talking about yet?
I think I understand you, but I cannot be positive. It sounds like you are trying to preserve God's omniscience by suggesting that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil needed to be present so Adam and Eve would eventually choose to disobey God by eating the fruit and learning the important lesson of the difference between Good and Evil.
I am saying that knowing the difference between Good and Evil is not necessary (why would we ever need to know how to avoid evil by making good choices if their was no evil to navigate?) if evil is never introduced into the world. Freewill is not dependent on knowing evil. Most importantly, the irony of eating the fruit is that Adam and Eve actually lost their ability to make good (perfect) choices because of the curse of the Fall - Original sin. So, before they disobeyed - they knew that eating the fruit was wrong / less good - and they could choose not to eat of it (perfect good) or to eat of it (lesser good / sin) - after they ate of the fruit they could no longer make perfect choices - they could only make lesser good / sinful choices (until Jesus died on the Cross for our sins).
Your preaching to the choir but the question I have been putting forward is...WHY did they know right from wrong before they ate from the tree of knowledge...of good and evil?
Because they knew God did not want them to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You are right that they could not imagine the horrible consequences of eating the fruit, but they knew that disobeying God was wrong. The same thing happens when parents tell their kids not to do something that is beyond their scope of reason - the kids are required to obey on faith. They may not understand the consequences of their actions, but they do know that obedience is good and disobedience is bad.
My conclusion was not because they had a free will as such but they understood the choices given to them...from God - eat and die, From Satan - eat and be like God knowing good from evil.
And I am saying that understanding the consequences of their actions is not important - faith in God is important and we do not need to know about the consequences of evil and sin to know that disobedience due to a lack of faith (the serpent knows something that God is refusing to tell us) in God is wrong.
Yes THEY did...but not because of free will...free will is the freedom to choose...how can one choose without having an understanding of what one is choosing and the consequences of that choice. They did IMHO because when God breathed life into them in the beginning, he also gave them knowledge and understanding of good. The tree was a mixed batch of good and evil. If they knew what was good then we can conclude that everything outside of the order of good....was evil.
You are describing the misuse of freewill and treating it like a privilege or necessity. Here is an analogy: A child gets a new toy - she loves the toy and plays with it all the time, until her friend tells her that she is not playing with it like an adult. The girl is confused and says 'My mom never told me to play with my toy differently'. Her friend says 'well, it is because she doesn't want you to be too grown up!' Her friend hands her a hammer a teaches her how to smash her toy. "My mom told me that I needed to take care of my toys', says the girl. "See! Your mom really doesn't want you to act like a grown up!' says the friend. So the girl smashes her toy and tries to hide it from her mom. When her mom confronts her, she say 'I was just playing like an adult!" Later, instead of receiving the toys her mom had planned to give her over the next few years, she ends up giving her broken and used toys because her daughter has developed a compulsion to break every toy she receives so that she can feel like an adult.
So, the moral of the story is not that breaking toys has really helped the girl to grow up. Instead, it is that the breaking toys is a misuse of play that carries the consequence of missed blessings. Therefore, knowing how to break her toys through disobedience has only hurt, rather than enhanced. If the girl had never learned how to break her toys she would have been better off.