that is about as convoluted circular reasoning as i have read in a while.Quote from Barth Vader:
Well, vhehn, this is not one of your better rebuttals, if I may say so.
Living near a freeway, is of course, a man-made construct.
Regarding the creation, these type of dangers were not present, in Adams' placement in Eden.
"...The fact that the creature can fall away from God and perish does not imply any imperfection on the part of creation or the Creator. What it does mean positively is that it is something created and is therefore dependent on preserving grace, just as it owes its very existence simply to the grace of its Creator.
A creature freed from the possibility of falling away would not really be living as a creature. It could only be a second God - and as no second God exists, it could only be God Himself. Sin is when the creature avails itself of this impossible possibility in opposition to God and to the meaning of its own existence. But the fault is that of the creature and not of God....it follows inevitably only from the incomprehensible fact that the creature rejects the preserving grace of God. What belongs to the nature of the creature is that it is not physically hindered from doing this. If it were hindered in this way, it could not exist at all as a creature. In that case, grace would not be grace and the creature would inevitably be God Himself................"
[ Church Dogmatics, III.1, The Doctrine of Creation, Karl Barth ]
In your analogy, I would offer that the child built the freeway which is presenting the possibility of mortal danger. But even so, there is a formidable wall placed between the two.......Grace.
Respectfully
my rebuttal allowed for the possibility that your god existed in the senario. i was only pointing out that if he does exist he is a cruel unloving uncaring bastard that sets his subjects up for failing and is hardly worth worship.