Providence and coincidence

[Michael1801]

Providence and coincidence​

Michael1801:

Are Providence and coincidence mutually exclusive?

OK… . So… What did you mean by 'coincidence" in the OP Question?

Whatever you take it to mean, and I was asking you, and everyone else, what you take it to mean in that opening post.

"So my question is whether any or all of these things could be coincidences?

And what that word means if you believe in a God who knows all, and sees the future?"

I said that I didn’t know what the word meant, and I was asking others to help me define it (if it had any meaning.)

That’s what the thread is about.

 

[Michael1801]

Someone just defined what he meant by *coincidence" in a pm to me, and I found his comments very helpful.

I already thanked him, and I’m not gonna mention his username here (because he could have posted here himself if he had wanted to), but here is what he said:

"I think that at some point there will necessarily be things that share common elements even though they are entirely unrelated, so in this case there would be coincidences. Using that reasoning it would be correct to say coincidences exist. When I say that I don’t believe in coincidences, I mean in the more colloquial sense of the word, such as two directly related events like running into your priest at the store when you need to speak to him."

So some things would be coincidences, and some things wouldn’t be.

I think that makes a lot of sense, and I think it’s what St. Thomas Aquinas was saying (but I’m finding it hard to follow him sometimes, and I’d appreciate some help.)

Pax Et Bonum (as my friend in Australia says.)

 

[EndTimes]

Whatever you take it to mean, and I was asking you, and everyone else, what you take it to mean in that opening post.

No.

Your opening line in your thread places the Onus squarely upon you…

" Is it theologically correct to say (as many believers do) that there are no coincidences? "

Without that - your already vague and ambiguous question becomes meaningless, no matter what someone else may think.

It’s far from the norm to refuse giving definitions to terms in one’s question(s)

 

[EndTimes]

Please stop trying to pick a fight here.

Please… I’m not trying to pick a fight…

I’ve merely asked a question - which is normal to ask during debate.

Define your terms…

It’s you who’s been refusing to define what you mean…

NOTE: You never asked: What do you think ‘coincidence’ means?

No. Your very first question asks:

" Is it theologically correct to say (as many believers do) that there are no coincidences? "

 

[Michael1801]

Someone just defined what he meant by *coincidence" in a pm to me, and I found his comments very helpful.

I already thanked him, and I’m not gonna mention his username here (because he could have posted here himself if he had wanted to), but here is what he said:

"I think that at some point there will necessarily be things that share common elements even though they are entirely unrelated, so in this case there would be coincidences. Using that reasoning it would be correct to say coincidences exist. When I say that I don’t believe in coincidences, I mean in the more colloquial sense of the word, such as two directly related events like running into your priest at the store when you need to speak to him."

So some things would be coincidences, and some things wouldn’t be.

I think that makes a lot of sense, and I think it’s what St. Thomas Aquinas was saying (but I’m finding it hard to follow him sometimes, and I’d appreciate some help.)

Pax Et Bonum (as my friend in Australia says.)

As I said here, I’m having some trouble understanding St. Aquinas, and I’d appreciate some help.

Am I correct in assuming that a direct sign from God–as when the Church chose Matthias by lot to replace Judas as one of the Apostles–is something Aquinas would say God willed “per se”?

And the serial number a computer assigns a movie ticket (unless God intended a message) would be something he’d say God willed “per accidens”?

I already said here (in a post to Mary 77, after I followed the link MPat gave me, and I started reading Aquinas) that I’d now tend to define “coincidence” as something that God didn’t will “per se,” but that only followed as a result of secondary causes.

Why someone seems to want me to repeat that definition, or keeps quoting only the first two lines of the OP, I don’t know.

I only know that I had no idea how to define the word in any way that would have meaning to a believer in Providence when I started this thread, and made that abundantly clear in the OP.

I think I see a definition now, and would like to know if I understand St. Aquinas correctly.

Thank you.

 

[Michael1801]

NOTE: You never asked: What do you think ‘coincidence’ means?

In my very first post–in the OP you keep quoting only part of–I said "So my question is whether any or all of these things could be coincidences?

And what that word means if you believe in a God who knows all, and sees the future?"

“…And what that word means….”

Also, it’s not my term–It’s a term I’ve heard many believers who say there is no such thing use.

I asked for help defining it, and I asked if the oft made statement that there is no such thing (without any attempt to define terms by those making the statement) is theologically correct.

The OP was not just one or two lines, and I summarized my question by asking if the word had any meaning for us.

I was inviting anyone to offer a definition that did have meaning for us.

I’ve already said that after reading Aquinas, I think I’d define a coincidence as something that God doesn’t will per se (like human freewill), but something He only wills per accidens (like sin, which follows as a consequence of freewill, which is a secondary cause, if I understand Aquinas correctly.)

Now I invite you to offer your definition of coincidence.

How do you define the term?

And do you believe in such a thing?

And what about Providence?

Do you believe in a God who’s above time?

And how does your definition of coincidence (if you believe in such a thing at all) fit in with a God above time?

This is what I asked everyone in the OP, but you never offered any thoughts on any of these things

Would you like to now?

 

[debgab]

I’m thinking that we might see things and call them coincidences, but maybe that’s our way of saying that we are only seeing a part of something and are unable to put the pieces of the larger puzzle together which would involve time. So after some time has passed with this coincidence of the 666 and Ronald Reagan, how would you evaluate it now? would one still observe the coincidence of the 666 and still be drawn to a conclusion that looks obvious? Or after time has passed, how does it look now? Does it still look as if he could be identified with this number? or do other things come into play that make it not seem like a “slam dunk” ?
I might not be interpretating this topic properly, but it’s interesting and felt compelled to chime in.
Deb

 

[Michael1801]

I’m thinking that we might see things and call them coincidences, but maybe that’s our way of saying that we are only seeing a part of something and are unable to put the pieces of the larger puzzle together which would involve time. So after some time has passed with this coincidence of the 666 and Ronald Reagan, how would you evaluate it now? would one still observe the coincidence of the 666 and still be drawn to a conclusion that looks obvious? Or after time has passed, how does it look now? Does it still look as if he could be identified with this number? or do other things come into play that make it not seem like a “slam dunk” ?
I might not be interpretating this topic properly, but it’s interesting and felt compelled to chime in.
Deb

If President Reagan had been the Antichrist, it would have been no coincidence that he had six letters in each of his names, and the winning Maryland number was 666 the day he was elected, and the book of the Revelation warned us about the Antichrist being associated with that number.

These would have been signs from God.

But president Reagan’s been dead for over 20 years, and he wasn’t the Antichrist.

But the associations were real.

They weren’t fabricated by his enemies.

He really had six letters in each of his three names.

And the winning number really was 666

So what were these things if not coincidences?

And what does that mean?

I don’t think any Catholic can believe that means these things were unforeseen by God.

Or that they were beyond His control.

Or that He didn’t know some people would run with them.

But if Mr. Reagan wasn’t an agent of the devil, God couldn’t have willed these things as signs.

Maybe He willed them for some other reason.

Or maybe He didn’t will them in themselves at all.

Maybe He just willed most of us to have three names, and a lot of other factors down through history that I’m ignorant of that led to Mr. Reagan having six letters in each of his three names.

And other factors I’m ignorant of that led to some computer picking a winning lottery number in the state of Maryland (a state I don’t believe Mr. Reagan had any previous connection to) on the day of his election that happened to match the number of the beast.

I’m reading what St. Aquinas has to say about what God wills per se, and what He to wills per accidens, but it’s a heavy read.

If there are any students of Aquinas here I’d like to know if I’m using his terms correctly.

And if I understand him correctly.

I do believe there’s a sense in which some things can be called coincidences, and here’s what someone wrote me:

"I think that at some point there will necessarily be things that share common elements even though they are entirely unrelated, so in this case there would be coincidences. Using that reasoning it would be correct to say coincidences exist. When I say that I don’t believe in coincidences, I mean in the more colloquial sense of the word, such as two directly related events like running into your priest at the store when you need to speak to him."

 

[EndTimes]

"So my question is whether any or all of these things could be coincidences?

Coincidence?

Hmmmm…

Might you mean

• accident
• chance
• serendipity
• fate
• destiny
• fortuity
• fortune
• providence
• freak occurence
• hazard
• luck
• fluke
• a happy chance ·
• happenstance

OR?

• correspondence in nature or in time of occurrence?

OR?

1. coincidence?

 

[Michael1801]

Why Hmmm?

I already said that I would define a coincidence as something that God wills per accidens, but not per se, and (twice now) I’ve used the example of human freewill (which I believe God wills per se), and sin (which follows as a result of the secondary cause of human freewill, and I believe He only wills per accidens–because it’s a necessary result of freewill, which He wills per se.)

Didn’t you read my last reply to you?

I already said, twice now, that that’s how I’d define coincidence after reading Aquinas.

Why isn’t that enough for you?

Why do you keep coming back and asking me to answer a question I’ve already answered.

And why the Hmmm?

Once again, this is what someone wrote me (and I think it’s part of what Aquinas was saying):

"I think that at some point there will necessarily be things that share common elements even though they are entirely unrelated, so in this case there would be coincidences. Using that reasoning it would be correct to say coincidences exist. When I say that I don’t believe in coincidences, I mean in the more colloquial sense of the word, such as two directly related events like running into your priest at the store when you need to speak to him."

So if my friend here is right, in any system God wills per se, at some point there will necessarily be things that He only wills per accidens, and that share common elements even though they are entirely unrelated.

This is what I would define as a coincidence.

(And again, if there are any students of Aquinas here, I’d like to know if I’m using his terms correctly.

And if I understand him correctly.)

 

[EndTimes]

I already said that I would define a coincidence as something that God wills per accidens, but not per se, and (twice now) I’ve used the example of human freewill (which I believe God wills per se), and sin (which follows as a result of the secondary cause of human freewill, and I believe He only wills per accidens–because it’s a necessary result of freewill, which He wills per se.)

God Wills as He Will including Willing our Free Will aka His permissive will.

 

[Michael1801]

Michael1801:

I already said that I would define a coincidence as something that God wills per accidens, but not per se, and (twice now) I’ve used the example of human freewill (which I believe God wills per se), and sin (which follows as a result of the secondary cause of human freewill, and I believe He only wills per accidens–because it’s a necessary result of freewill, which He wills per se.)

God Wills as He Will including Willing our Free Will aka His permissive will.

Ok

So again (if my friend is right), in any complex system God wills per se, at some point there will necessarily be things that share common elements even though they are entirely unrelated (and that He only wills per accidens.)

This is what I would define as a coincidence after reading Aquinas.

Are you saying the same thing in different words?

(And again, if there are any students of Aquinas here, I’d like to know if I’m using his terms correctly.

And if I understand him correctly.)

 

[EndTimes]

Are you saying the same thing in different words?

I’m not sure… I understand what I’ve said…

Your use of ‘per se’ and ‘accidens’ is foreign. .

 

[Michael1801]

They’re Latin.

“Per se” means in and of itself.

And “per accidens” means indirectly.

One possible example of what God wills per se (in and of itself) might be human freewill.

And one example of what He wills per accidens (indirectly) might be sin.

People sin because they have freewill (which God wills that per se), but the sin is the result of a secondary cause (human free will), and God wills it only indirectly (per accidens.)

I think that’s what Aquinas is saying.

 

[Latin]

Is it theologically correct to say (as many believers do) that there are no coincidences?

YES, THEOLOGICALLY CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES.

“God takes care of the things of which He is the cause.

And so, the things that result from His action are subject to divine providence.

But we showed before that God works through all secondary causes, and that all their products may be traced back to God as their cause; so it must be that the things that are done among singulars are His works.

Therefore, these singulars, and also their motions and operations, come under the scope of divine providence.

So, if God be only concerned with universals, and if He be entirely negligent of these singulars, then His providence will be foolish and imperfect.

So, whatever a thing is, and whatever its mode of existing, it falls under His providence.

Now, singulars are beings, and more so than universals, for universals do not subsist of themselves, but are only in singulars.

Therefore, divine providence also applies to singulars.

Therefore, the participation of divine goodness by created things is accomplished by divine providence.

But even contingent singulars participate in divine goodness.
So, divine providence must extend even to them.

Hence it is said: “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing: and not one of them shall fall on the ground without My Father” (Matt. 10:29; see 6:26)

By this conclusion we set aside the opinion of those who said that divine providence does not extend as far as these singular things.”

https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains.

All things are created and governed with a view to man, to the development of his life and his intelligence, and to the satisfaction of his needs (Aristides, “Apol.”, i, v, vi, xv, xvi.

His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:2-10;

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.”,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
We all should have the same faith in God then St.Thomas More had.

CCC 313 St.Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: “Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.” 182
.
CCC 324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
.
God bless

 

[EndTimes]

1. • One possible example of what God wills per se (in and of itself) might be human freewill.
2. • And one example of what He wills per accidens (indirectly) might be sin.

1. God Willed aka Permits Free Will
2. Confounds Understanding God:
   Commandments, Obedience, Sin, Cause, Reward, Punishments, Et Cetera

 

[debgab]

After I wrote my take on the subject I started to reorganize my thoughts about what I really wanted to say. So I may write again p(name removed by moderator)ointing things a little more clearly.

 

[debgab]

Yes all of those things about Reagan’s name, the lottery ticket were real and did seem associated with each other to “look” like an intepretation meant for you Michael1801 or me or others.
I haven’t read Aquinas, but I don’t think there is such a thing as coincidence, I think (again) it’s our way of intepretating maybe the result of what you said; per accidens. But per accidens would then be re-ordered by God as he does with all things and he does them in a time frame or spans of time, small increments of time not perceptable to us, perhaps? ultimately for the good of all things, his good.
In other words, if things add up a certain way and look as though they have a special meaning meant for us, God could mean it as face value or distribute it’s effects/re-direct it’s effect or affects, according to the ultimate good per his will. For instance, just the fact we’re discussing this may have been part of His redirecting of “it” (the event) and perhaps the result or fruit of this discussion remains to be seen for you or me or any others joining in on this discussion for hours, days, months or years.
It could be if we imagine the event of Reagan’s name, his street address, and the lottery ticket number as a reminder for believer’s to stay alert and be watchful. Also devil can use events to throw us off track (if God wills) so need to discern things carefully.

Deb

 

[Michael1801]

From Aquinas:

[1] It is also apparent from the foregoing that divine providence does not take away fortune and chance from things.

[2] For it is in the case of things that happen rarely that fortune and chance are said to be present. Now, if some things did not occur in rare instances, all things would happen by necessity. Indeed, things that are contingent in most cases differ from necessary things only in this: they can fail to happen, in a few cases. But it would be contrary to the essential character of divine providence if all things occurred by necessity, as we showed. Therefore, it would also be contrary to the character of divine providence if nothing were to be fortuitous and a matter of chance in things.
https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#74

From this it would appear to be theologically incorrect to say there’s no such thing as coincidence (i.e. chance.)

So (if Aquinas is right here) the question becomes in what sense there is such a thing as coincidence (or chance.)

And since Aquinas says that nothing is outside God’s will, the difference between an act of Providence and a coincidence would appear to lie in what God wills per se (in and of itself), and in what He wills per accidens (indirectly.)

Deb suggested that God might have willed president Reagan to have six letters in each of his three names (and the winning Maryland pick 3 lottery number to be 666 the day he was elected president) simply so that we’d have this discussion here, but if that’s true He didn’t will it per se (in and of itself, as a face value sign or omen), but per accidens (indirectly, so it would have some desired effect almost 40 years later.)

 

[Michael1801]

Michael1801:

1. • One possible example of what God wills per se (in and of itself) might be human freewill.
2. • And one example of what He wills per accidens (indirectly) might be sin.

1. God Willed aka Permits Free Will
2. Confounds Understanding God:
   Commandments, Obedience, Sin, Cause, Reward, Punishments, Et Cetera

I don’t believe God simply “permits” freewill.

I believe He wills it per se.

In and of itself–because it’s intrinsically good.

Because without it we’d be robots, or puppets, and He doesn’t want that.

Robots and puppets wouldn’t sin, but they wouldn’t have freewill, so freewill becomes the secondary cause of sin, which God wills per accidens (indirectly, because He wants creatures with freewill, and not mere automatons.)

Anyway, that’s how I see it (and I think Aquinas would agree.)