You don't "know" there is "no such thing as coincidence." That would mean the impossibility of random events, but they are all around us. The motion of gas molecules is random, according to the kinetic theory of gases, which predicts the gas laws to an accuracy that is unmatched. If the motions were not random, there would be an error between the theory and measurement. So, the existence of randomness in nature (i.e., coincidence) is proven by falsification of the opposite theory.
But that says nothing about the present event, which mainly is mysterious. (I go to the link, but the embedded videos don't run for me.)
And where Q, a human being, will always have a tendency to speak loosely to make a point. Maybe if restricted to the realm of politics, the idea becomes more real. That is a possibility. But to take it as a global truth...not even remotely close. I find the validity of Q to be found in the explanations, not the metaphysics.
I notice you did not address the hard, empirical, fact- and logic-based disproof of "there are no coincidences" and instead substituted an appeal to authority, the first of all argumentative fallacies. You have to watch your moves in the mirror to see when you are awkward.
You don't "know" there is "no such thing as coincidence." That would mean the impossibility of random events, but they are all around us. The motion of gas molecules is random, according to the kinetic theory of gases, which predicts the gas laws to an accuracy that is unmatched. If the motions were not random, there would be an error between the theory and measurement. So, the existence of randomness in nature (i.e., coincidence) is proven by falsification of the opposite theory.
But that says nothing about the present event, which mainly is mysterious. (I go to the link, but the embedded videos don't run for me.)
Welcome to Great Awakening, a forum where we discuss things from the perspective of Q, an author who used this terminology.
And where Q, a human being, will always have a tendency to speak loosely to make a point. Maybe if restricted to the realm of politics, the idea becomes more real. That is a possibility. But to take it as a global truth...not even remotely close. I find the validity of Q to be found in the explanations, not the metaphysics.
I notice you did not address the hard, empirical, fact- and logic-based disproof of "there are no coincidences" and instead substituted an appeal to authority, the first of all argumentative fallacies. You have to watch your moves in the mirror to see when you are awkward.
It's not an appeal to authority to mention hard facts about the context of the conversation.
Don't kid me. It is an appeal to authority when the only thing Q can add to the discussion is an opinion on the subject.