Love this argument! I had no idea of all those coincidences. Has someone done the maths here too? But I still don't believe those coincidences add up to a proof of determinism. Would we have to understand the cause, to justify a theory of determinism?

I believe in coincidences, and even though there are a lot of common occurrences in the lives of Lincoln and Kennedy, I still believe that something happening as a matter of either coincidence or choice (determined by a variety of factors and agents) is stronger, and the example mentioned, even though convincing to some extent, does not necessarily prove the theory of determinism. Even if determinism is stronger than we think, I think accepting it and embracing is would possibly have dire consequences in 'determining' the actions of individuals who would deny agency and free choice. I dread to imagine what would happen in a world like this!

Absolutely fascinating! You've blown my mind with this.

Coincidences cannot prove that free will does not exist and determinism is true. It may prove that our free will sometimes is constrained and impinged on, by another force, but it cannot prove that free will is not a factor. The only way to prove determinism, as far as coincidences are concerned, would be to remove the definition of coincidence by understanding the forces that create incredible coincidences and see if these "rules" were always followed or sometimes were not. So let;s have some fun with this and see if we can identify at lease one of this "coincidence force" rules and speculate whether this rule is being always applied or only sometimes applied, in Kennedy and lincoln's lives. Let us do a bit of fun analysis of a few of the amazing lincoln and Kennedy coincidences mentioned by one of the contributors here. In the coincidences listed there seem to be a 100 year rule for major events between lincoln's and kennedy's lives. For instance: it mentions Lincoln was elected to the house of Congress in 1846 while Kennedy was elected to the same body in 1946. The contributor also mentions that Lincoln won the presidential election in1860 while Kennedy won it in 1960 and Lincoln failed to get the vice presidency nomination in 1856 while Kennedy failed to get it in 1956. But are there any instances where this 100 year rule does not apply? Well lincoln died in 1863 ending his presidency, while Kennedy died in 1965 ending his presidency. The 100 year rule doesn;t seem to have applied here. Is that because Lincoln and Kennedy's free will more clearly exerted it self at some point in their presidency, so extending it despite the power of this coincidence force? I think most people would agree losing a child is a major life event, Lincoln and kennedy both lost a child while in the white house. Lincoln's died in 1862 at the age of 11 from what was likely typhoid fever while Kennedy's died in 1963 just two days after being born prematurely. Why has the 100 year rule been broken here? As was it broken on the year they got married? Being married is also a major life event. Other rules of this coincidence force, include strong coincidences in names, places related to circumstances etc. The reader can continue to look at the coincidences, speculate on the "coincidence force" rules and see how they seem to apply sometimes and not at other times. Another factor that argues against the belief that this "coincidence force" proves we have no free will and determinism is true, is that the "incredible coincidences" listed aren't more common. For instance, there must be millions of biographies written of world famous, note worthy people. So shouldn't almost every biography have an appendix listing the coincidence with one noteable past person, if some "coincidence force" was a strong factor in our lives ? Shouldn;t we know lots of people in our lives that claim they have striking coincidences, to some past person, just as kennedy and Lincoln do? Could it be that for some reason, Lincoln and Kennedy had a greater amount of this "coincidence force" in their lives than in the vast majority of people. So their free will was more constrained upon than most people? Even if this was the case, it still does not mean they did not have free will, it just means the force was so great for them, that they sometimes appeared to have less free will. Striking coincidences do not prove determinism but merely suggests that our free will maybe, for some of us, more constrained than it appears on the surface.

Help! Brain-fry: "such as a God towards us but simultaneously a force against God too, either from us back at the God force or from the force creating God itself back at God or even through to us? (Or both?)" Help me understand what you mean?