I in no way attempted to use logic on God here. I applied logic to the story of original sin, as it was explained to me, not to God. It was simple cause and effect logic applied to the story. You must eat the fruit before you have the knowledge. Eating the fruit is the cause, gaining the knowledge is the effect. You must have the knowledge before you are capable of sin. Having the knowledge is the cause, the ability to sin is the effect. And, of course, you can’t do a thing before you have the ability to do that thing. You can’t go to lunch at noon before noon or you won’t be going to lunch “at noon”.
It seems pretty straight forward, but it’s actually a tiny bit complex. We are actually talking not just about cause and effect, but cause and effect with a prerequisite. Action “a” causes effect “s”. Taking some action which is forbidden (a) causes sin (s). That’s cause and effect. Pretty cut and dried. But then you have the problem of how Adam and Eve looked upon each other naked and it wasn’t a sin. Okay, we can get around that by saying it takes TWO things to commit a sin. Besides the action “a” we also need the knowledge “k”. So now it’s action with knowledge “ak” causes sin “s”.
But then we have to go back to eating the fruit. Action “a” (eating the fruit) causes knowledge “k” AND sin “s”, even though we just established that “a” alone cannot cause “s”, it MUST require “ak” or all the little babies would go straight to Hell.
This was a logical analysis of the logic Christians give for original sin. They change the rules whenever convenient and this is a classic example of that. In this case you can’t sin without knowledge…EXCEPT they totally sinned to get the knowledge. And God is beyond our definitions…EXCEPT for this property of his which I am defining. The sentence “Well, god is supposed to be beyond logic.”, ironically, defines what God is supposed to be to show why he is beyond defining. It is essentially saying, “I am defining the property of God that YOU cannot define his properties!” It’s petty, though I know it is unintentional.
But IF you have some explanation for original sin and why nudity wasn’t a sin before eating the fruit, well, this logic doesn’t apply to your version. The version I am familiar with, that totally didn’t happen. The explanations given don’t make sense because Christians have to carve out a narrow exception to their own rules for themselves, as they do all the time. Nothing can come from nothing! Except for God, of course, because he’s all powerful. All magic is evil! Except for God’s, of course, because he’s all good. God is beyond our understanding! Except when it’s convenient for me to understand him, of course, because I have the one truth. They continually make these absolute rules which they demand cannot be broken AND THEN carve out narrow little examples for themselves any time those absolutes become inconvenient for them. If that’s not your version of original sin then this doesn’t apply to you.