>>393462
>This presupposes that God necessarily exist.
You're missing the point. Just because a person is smart, that doesn't make them intelligent nor give them the "privilege" to rule over me. A reasonable person, not believing there to be an omnipotent God, would come to the conclusion that we have more questions about the universe than we do answers, that we don't know everything about the universe, that the people providing us those answers and knowledge of the universe are flawed individuals who's integrity and discoveries are pushed to their limit through endlessly repeating experiments, much more we cannot create the universe despite our knowledge, however we can control it in limited quantities based on the knowledge that we do have, and it is based on this knowledge that we theorize that X, Y, and Z happened.
Modern science, and the people who support it, do not do this. What they do instead is turn science into a religion, that has nothing to do with experimentation and observable facts.
INSTEAD what modern science does is seek to create a conclusion and find "proof", from wherever it "exists", to show that conclusion to be correct. In the Soviet Union, the religion of the day was Lysenkoism:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Lysenkoism
>>393463
>If you affirm that one thing has been affected by some unknown force, it falls onto you to prove that the unknown force exists and affects the thing in the particular manner you described.
The argument also goes in the opposite direction. If you assert that God
doesn't exist, then it's on you to prove it.
>because the entire book the dogma is based on is hopelessly outdated in several aspects
Yet the Bible is one of four books every archeologist has.
>I'd say it's entirely alright to view things in some religious sense that things are greater than ourselves and we're discovering it as time goes, it's not against God's will to understand the world around you is, is it? It's just that pointing at things and saying "God did it!" is boring and reduces any chance of reasonably explaining the events happening in front of you.
Again, this happened in the opposite direction as well. In fact, this is the most widespread belief behind how polytheism came into practice. That humans wanted to "control" aspects of nature, and as a result diluted a singular god into pantheons who can be swayed by human emotions and actions.
>>393464
Yes, but why even have the damn tree? Very few every really ask that. Just spitballing, humanity was intended to eat of the fruit but at a much later time, or the fruit is a "low level" understanding and it was to test our temptation, or it needed to "grow" making the fruit an "incomplete" understand of the world.