E.g. "This triangle is yellow because someone painted it yellow" is an example of an external reason. "This triangle has 3 sides because it is in the definition of a triangle to have 3 sides" is an example of internal reason. I.e. insofar that we can defend that the triangle exists, then we accept that it has 3 sides simply because it is in its definition, and the PSR is fully satisfied.

Similarly, free will allows us to choose free of other reasons because this freedom to choose is in the definition of free will. This is an internal reason which satisfies the PSR. So, insofar that we can defend that free will exists, then we accept that it allows us to choose free of other reasons because it is in its definition, and this fully satisfies the PSR.

Robespierre who unleashed the terror on France was a theist. Robespierre established a holiday, the National Celebration Of The Supreme Being. See Wikipedia - Cult Of The Supreme being for more. Robespierre had the atheist party, headed Jaques Hebert and his followers executed. Again, see Wikipedia. The French revolution saw an end to persecution of Protestants by the RCC.

Fr. Brian Davies has done the Yeoman's work in critiquing the Free Will Defense. At least in the formulation given by Plantinga. The Catholic view is a wee bit different.

Augustine [came] to reject the free-will defence altogether. He became a compatibilist [my bold], though he continued to believe that evil is not caused, but is rather permitted, by God, because God was able to use evil to produce a greater good. Thus, far from being the classic exponent of the free-will defence, Augustine was actually its first major detractor, and by the end of his career he had become the free-will defence's most enduring critic...
Augustine's expressions of dissatisfaction with the free-will approach in?
dicate that he considered the approach at best psychologically inert-since
it leaves human choices mysterious and inexplicable - and at worst actively
misleading - implying that human beings have more control over their choices
than experience (and, he came to believe, scripture) suggests...
he indicates that no explanation for the primal sin is available, and that none should be sought: instead of an efficient cause, Augustine writes with rhetorical flourish, sin has a 'deficient' cause {CD, XII.6; XII.7, 9). He is claiming that the primal sin lacked both cause and explanation; far from being necessary, or even reasonable, it was perverse. The primal sin, as a desire for a lesser good, and ultimately harmful knowledge, is inexplicable, because Adam and Eve were created to rest in God.
This ontological analysis of the Fall fits Augustine's privation account of evil,
according to which sin is a falling from the good, a defect...
Augustine's idea that the Fall had a deficient cause might seem philosophically untenable. Can he avoid falling prey to Rogers's charge that in the end he makes God 'the author of sin'? ... it is important to clarify that in one central
respect Augustine's late view of God's relationship to evil is the same as his early
view: all along, Augustine was committed to the belief that God was partially
responsible for the Fall, since God permitted it to happen. Early and late,
Augustine considers God responsible for sin's advent - he simply insists that God
has good reasons for letting the Fall happen, only some of which we understand.

~ Jesse, Couenhoven (Villanova), "Augustine's Rejection of the Free-Will Defence: An Overview of the Late Augustine's Theodicy," Religious Studies, Sep., 2007, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Sep., 2007), pp. 279-298.

I'm not obligated to believe nothing exists.

The Catholic Church Ex Cathedra defined that all the faithful are obligated to believe God made everything out of nothing.

>" ... don't use Thomas Aquinas' five ways, they only describe an uncaused cause, not a living thing "

I did not realize that you had comedic talent.

Some very, very basic metaphysics for you: Non-being does not beget being. If a cause begets something living, it too must be alive, since nothing can give what it does not have.

This is so basic I cannot believe you said what you said.

I think I indicated earlier that I am not in the business of debating miracles -- at least I do not claim they are within my field of expertise. But I reserve the right to draw my own conclusions.

I'm guessing Dr. B would have a difficult time proving something that is not God is God, but it would equally difficult for him in a few short sentences to prove everything must have come from nothing. Incoherence is not his forte.

I'm not sure what the importance of that is, but we were actually discussing excommunication, or more broadly - how to re-write history to make the Church appear to be a Nazi institution.

Then prove in a few short sentences that everything must have come from a conscious, animate, living being. don't use Thomas Aquinas' five ways, they only describe an uncaused cause, not a living thing. And by "two thousand years of miracles" I assume you mean things that cannot be photographed or tested today, aside from some "miraculous heart tissue of Jesus" in a church in Italy, that is brown, appears to have see the corruption of the grave (Decomposition) contrary to Acts 1, and, when photographed form the side, bluntly, (know this is gross, but it is true nonetheless) looks like a poo emoji. And in South America people have successfully made a very precise duplicate of The Shroud of Turin.