Final answer:
Adam and Eve's belief in the post hoc fallacy suggests that because one event follows another, it supports it. However, this type of reasoning does not hold up to logical scrutiny as it lacks empirical evidence and can lead to mistaken beliefs.
Step-by-step explanation:
Adam and Eve are believing in a logical fallacy called post hoc, saying because one event followed another, it supports it. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy assumes that only because one event occurs after another, the first event must be the cause of the second. This fallacy is a common error in reasoning and argumentation, and while it may appear to provide support for a claim to those who already believe in it, it does not stand up to rational scrutiny. For someone to accept that the sequence of events implies causation, they must overlook other possible causes or scenarios.
In the context of arguments for the existence of a deity, using a text assumed to be divinely inspired as evidence begs the question. It's circular reasoning to say that a religious book is the word of God, and then use that to prove the existence of God. Rational arguments for empirical claims require evidence that corresponds to reality, is consistent with other established truths, and has useful consequences. In contrast, the post hoc fallacy lacks these critical elements of a logical and empirical claim, often leading to superstitious beliefs reinforced by confirmation bias.