Except that something external did cause your knee jerking at the doctor's office, namely, the doctor hitting your knee, which in turn sends electro-chemical signals up your spinal cord, which then are received in the brain, which then are transmitted by neurons, etc., etc. Again, this is...
It's simple modus tollens:
P implies Q
-Q
Therefore -P
Right. But then I'm simply inclined to think that P2 is obviously false. After all, I am freely writing this response to you. I could have not responded if I wanted to. I could stop in the middle of responding and get a Coca Cola.
My false assumption alarm is going off.
If public policy didn't generalize, then public policy would look something like this:
"On the evening of the 24th of March at 9:37 PM, Dr. Archibald-Wellings Sr. may [or may not] fire at and fatally injure his neighbor, Steven O'Donnell, with his 9mm...
Because it is self-evident that I understand it? Hence my using the term? The union between a man and a woman is real, not imagined or constructed. But in what sense are they united? Consider the various parts of a plane -- the engines, wings, and avionics. What unites all of these parts...
For reasons that I needn't mention here (it would be above everyone's pay-grade), one cannot make sense of anything without something like final causality. That's hardly an "unattractive" yardstick, eh?
Of course. The penis is also ordered towards the expelling of waste. You'll now notice that...
Glorious refutation. Much good.
Loaded with logical fallacies. Much refute.
Much point missing again. Much head hurt. Much no bother no longer.
P1.) Dude, have you even heard of the Argonauts? Like dude they're like a football team who was once like a rowing club. But they're like not a rowing...
That's all irrelevant. Essentialism/Natural Law theory isn't incompatible with anything you just mentioned. In fact, one can only make sense of the matters you mention vis-a-vis Aristotelian final causality.
That's right, Aquinas adapted much of Aristotelian thought into Catholicism. Aquinas would say that he simply borrowed from the common sense of the Greeks. The point is moot, however. One obviously needn't be Catholic or Christian at all in order to make sense of this. Take Aristotle as proof.
Yes, again, Aristotle was a huge Christian/Catholic supporter. Indeed, I'm told by many experts that he had a "Viva Pope John Paul II" and a "Vote for Bush" bumper sticker on the back of his mule.
All that advice you offered in the beginning of this thread is depreciating in value at an exponential rate with every laughable response and comment you make. :shrug:
You're not understanding what I mean by "ordered towards." To say that something is "ordered towards" something is just to say that it is such that it is directed towards a final cause of some sort. So an eye, for example, is clearly ordered towards sight. A mouth is clearly ordered towards...
Say that you were to gather 99 blind people in a room. Then, you place 1 person who can see in the room as well. Would we then conclude, as many on this thread are, that eyes are not ordered towards seeing? Of course not! Ditto with sexual intercourse!
It really isn't hard to grasp, folks. I've...
Again, where's the evidence that there's overpopulation? And what makes you think that righting a wrong with another wrong (viz. detaching children from their mother and father) will be of any help?
Perhaps you won't even bother to respond like last time and you'll just repeat yourself. Hey...
That's actually precisely what is happening. Male homosexual couples, for example, pay surrogates to take to term some of their sperm and some of the eggs they bought from a genetically-endowed woman. After nine months, the surrogate hands over a child, receives a wad of cash and is then...
Do you think I'd defend the position if I didn't understand it? Of course I know what it means. On the other hand, noting by the "lol but, like, conception doesn't occur every time a man and a woman have sex lol bigot" comments, it's pretty clear that everyone else is having some trouble...
Again you miss the point. I'm not making any sort of probabilistic claim here. The point, once again, is that the sexual union between a man and a woman is procreative in nature. This is true even if conception doesn't occur, just as it would still be true that a football team is ordered towards...
That conception doesn't often result from sexual intercourse doesn't thereby show that sexual intercourse is not ordered towards procreation. Again, consider: is a football team that wins only 1 game in 100 not ordered towards winning? Of course not. Is a book that is half-legible not ordered...
Libertarian free will does not entail that every action is willed. The libertarian is only committed to the supposition that at least some actions are freely willed, not that they are all freely willed. What makes you say that of libertarian free will? That is, what have you been reading that...