Is Anything Coincidental?

The Webster definition of "coincidence" is, "An accidental and remarkable occurrence of events, ideas, etc. at the same time,  suggesting but lacking a causal relationship."

In a previous comment or article Jerry Kays stated that there is no such thing as "coincidence."  Which seems at first sight to be at odds with observed reality, at least to most people (most probably).  However, I also contend that  he is right in the universal sense.  By that, I contend that whether or not something appears to be coincidental depends strictly on one's limited perspective.  It is not a reality by any objective standard.  First, if we believe -- as I do -- that every natural occurrence in the universe has some causal relationship with everything else in the universe, however small or apparently miniscule, then by definition, "coincidence" is merely a state of mind of observation and not an independent reality.  On the otherhand, the causal relationship between two or more events as observed or reported may likely not be the relationship that occurs to the observer or is presumed to occur by the observer.  Which leads rather full circle to the position of seeing that a thing or things may be "coincidental" to one observer relative to what another person sees as "not coincidental" but "causal."  That is to say, while coincidence is not a reality, it is a reality to any observer who cannot ascertain the causal relationship.

I personally think that the coincidentalness of some set of events is merely a personal view of the set and depends upon whether the observer can accept the "causal relationship" that another observer deems to have found.  And since "proof" of anything is not absolute but relative to what satisfies the observer or group of observers for an explanation, coincidence is no more provable than anything else in our real world environment.  "Coincidence" is therefore, a personal opinion that may or may not be shared by any number of others.  It is not something intrinsic to reality except in the limited mind view of people.

Therefore, when one person points out a remarkable set of circumstances and forms the opinion that those circumstances are not coincidental but causally related, any refutation of that causal relationship by the flat statement that it is not causally related but coincidental is simply a personal opinion that is no more valid as an argument than that person's (or group of persons) choice of causalness.  It has no validity in an absolute sense.

Which means, as I see it -- again -- that there are two ways of looking at reality, one in which the observer takes the comfortable position of "no risk, no pain" and the other in which the person takes the risky position of "no risk, no gain."  Taking the first position leads to stagnation of ideas and the comfort of keeping the status quo with regard to knowledge.  Taking the second position risks making mistakes but is necessary in an ever changing environment in order to keep mentally abreast of what is required in order to evolve socially and mentally.  And while a "middle ground" between these two extremes is probably at least somewhat preferable, it usually requires a rare personality that can take the skeptical "high ground" but become open to yielding that "high ground" to a "new view"of things after some circumspection.

Which leads to the question:  What kind of person are you?  Are you a "risk taker" or an intransigent conformist?   Or are you that rare person that can think about it and dare to make an unpopular choice?