Free Speech: IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There has been a consistent interpretation of the concept of the First Amendment to the US Constitution since its inclusion in the Bill of Rights as the FIRST of ten amendments: it is not absolute. A traditional phrase to teach this reality is: "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.". In other words, if it incites harm, it is not constitutional. 

Given the above, it is objectively evidenced that many (? most) statements from every present-day conservative/MAGA Republican are unconstitutional. So, the question is: WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO USE MEDIA UNOPPOSED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY?  It is more than time to not only restore the Fairness Doctrine but make it inclusive of ALL media, with the requirement of instant/immediate fact-checking. With the wide knowledge base easily accessed by media today, this is now possible - - - use it!!!

God Of The Gaps Explained

Place yourself at home in the morning and there is just you and two others in the house. You prepare your breakfast of toast and coffee and are ready to eat. However, nature calls and you have to answer it. When you return, one of the two slices of toast is gone. You asked the two others, "Where is my toast?" Both of them deny taking it. There is no evidence pointing to either one (a gap in knowledge), however, you make the claim that one of them did it (a leap of faith). THIS is what we are talking about when religious apologists make claims for a God.

The above can be illustrated by debunking the Cosmological Argument (Argument from First Cause, and its variants). The religious claims that there must be the first cause of everything and it is God. The science-based thinker states that such a claim is unsupported by objective evidence and, in fact, given the weirdness of reality at the sub-atomic level and some suggestive evidence for an eternal system of multiverses, the only reasonable stance is to say, "We don't know."

Another Challenge To The First Cause Argument For God

"Causality is one of those difficult scientific topics that can easily stray into the realm of philosophy.

 

"Science's relationship with the concept started out simply enough: an event causes another event later in time.  That had been the standard understanding of the scientific community up until quantum mechanics was introduced. 

"Then, with the introduction of the famous "spooky action at a distance" that is a side effect of the concept of quantum entanglement, scientists began to question that simple interpretation of causality.

"Now, researchers at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the University of Oxford have come up with a theory that further challenges that standard view of causality as a linear progress from cause to effect."

Religious apologists frequently lead out with variations of the Cosmological (First Cause) argument for God. Click on the link below for more murkiness regarding causation.

Quantum Theory May Twist Cause And Effect Into Loops, With Effect Causing The Cause

Catholic Apologist Rebutted

Bishop Robert Barron is a noted Catholic Evangelical, with a particular focus on atheism. He recently sponsored an Ad on Facebook offering a free download of his 22-page ebook entitled "Answering the Atheists." I downloaded it, edited it with some comments, and sent it back to him via email. Below is a synopsis of the content and essentially my responses (in red):

• The Introduction included this sentence: "Today's atheists, in their condescending and often snarky dismissal of all transcendent truths, seem to be playing at atheism rather than seeing to the bottom of it."
• My response: What ARE "transcendent truths?" There is objective truth only. 
• He presented four "claims" that he thinks atheists make and then attempted to refute them.
• Atheist Claim #1: There is no evidence for God.
• His answer to Claim #1: There are plenty of "rational warrants" for belief in God.
• My response: There is no objective evidence for any God. Reason/intuition/philosophy ("transcendence?") will never trump objective evidence (science) as the brain alone has flaws and only science can justify its assessments. All syllogisms used by Christian apologists have at least one false premise. The theist is making the claim, thus, is obligated to provide the objective evidence. Christianity makes claims on our objective reality, thus, science can evaluate the claims. Science has rejected them all. Why should religion get an exemption from this process?
• Atheist Claim #2: What caused God? This is special pleading.
• His answer to Claim #2: Nothing, as God is not contingent on anything else. It is the "First Cause."
• My response: To say that God caused our reality is an argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps). Physics shows that an uncaused, eternal multiverse is at least as plausible as a God.
• Atheist Claim #3: Science has disproved God.
• His answer to Claim #3: This is Scientism (science is the only way of knowing). Other rational methods like philosophy transcend science.
• My response: What you label pejoratively as "Scientism" is only talking about objective evidence. Of course, there are other ways of knowing. I have already addressed transcendence. No atheists I know make the positive claim that there is no God. We only say that we can't accept the claim because of the lack of objective evidence.
• Atheist Claim #4: The Problem of Evil is a barrier to belief.
• His answer to Claim #4: A finite mind cannot take in the workings of an infinite mind.
• My response: You first have to show the evidence for an infinite mind. The Christian God supposedly is All-Good and we do not see evidence of such a reality, thus, it is falsified.

My assessment of this apologetic is that it is just another failed Christian apologetic. Only gullible, magical thinking atheists would fall for these arguments. Science-based thinkers, who are the atheists I know for the most part, would not be impressed, to say the least.

How Good Is The "First Cause" Argument For A God?

One of the favorite religious apologetic arguments for the existence of a God is the Cosmological argument "in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.^[1][2] It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, or the causal argument."

While there are several counter-arguments to this apologetic, including the concept of an eternal multiverse being at least as plausible as a God, the simple fact is that a "First Cause" is inconceivable: "Impossible to comprehend." For example, how can an immaterial entity have the ability to create matter? Creating something requires energy/force, which is a material/physical reality. In fact, the concept of "causation" is complicated not only in philosophy but also in physics (link).

Evaluation of claims includes two components: prior probability and supporting evidence. Since critical thinkers accept the meme that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", this argument, along with all the other arguments for the existence of a God, fails because the prior probability is very low, and supporting evidence is essentially nil. 

3 Sentences Refuting The "Big 3" Christian Apologetics

1)  The Cosmological Argument:  There has to be a "First Cause" and it has to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving (the "Omni-God").