1.)If you "recognize" that you are a "victim" of this universe THAT IS HAVING THE MINDSET OF A VICTIM.

2.)Claiming that you are not responsible for YOUR situation in life IS SITTING AROUND WHINING ABOUT IT.

3.)We are not all victims of circumstance. That is the opinion of a victim.

4.) Having the mentality of being a victim AT ALL is not going to help.

5.) All victims are victims because they believe themselves to be victims, claim to be victims, whine that they are victims, and kick and scream when someone tells them they are responsible for their life circumstances, and therefore they do have the power to change them.

It is actually a message of hope to the hopeless.

If you don't want to change your circumstances, and you just want to remain a victim, that is a CHOICE.

The scientific dragon is tuff... the philosophical one has been slain, without refutation from either science nor philosophy.

Reason, purpose or intent are not CAUSE.

I am talking about CAUSE. Not about reason, purpose or intent.

Exactly...

Read it again... calmly let me know if you would like to see it in plain english... black and white... succinctly.



It is easy to do.

The interaction between two independant systems(sets of circumstances which have independent cause and effect) does not have a cause for their simultaneous existence in the same place, without invoking reason, purpose, or intent...

Which is without cause.

Would you like an example?

But can you prove first that two completely separate sets of events can interact with each other without reason, purpose, or intent.

Everything does not have a cause.

In your thread on Victims and the Law of Attraction:

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/187209

You were attempting to claim that based on the Law of Attraction we are completely responsible for everything that comes to us because we necessarily ATTRACT IT.

That's the same as saying that we can never be the victim of anything that we don't attract to ourselves. And if we've attracted it, then we can hardly claim to be a 'victim' of it.

Yes I certainly would love an example.

My first sentence in that post in the O.P. was:

"In order to understand how a person becomes a victim here in this reality there are certain premises that are in place (at least in my world view, which is my belief system.) "

The bold part implies that people do become victims.

My assertion is that every EVENT has a cause. Not "everything."

How can that be?

People claim to be victims all the time after having attracted an event or circumstance into their life they do not like. They can "claim" anything they want.

However, if they agree that they are responsible for attracting it, then they cannot also claim to be a victim.

So they will deny that they attracted it. Just like you do.

Still waiting for proof and examples.

A coconut falls from a tree.

This is a closed causal system, meaning that it is a completely independent cause and effect relationship which is in no way affected by the following closed system, until the events independently unfold in the same place at the same time.

A man walks under the tree.

This is also a closed causal system, meaning that it is also a completely independent cause and effect relationship which is in no way affected by the previous closed system, until the events independently unfold in the same place at the same time.

The coconut kills the man.

This is the product of two closed systems interacting without purpose, reason, nor intent for the fact that they did.

There is no independent cause for both sets happening simultaneously. In order to explain this one must invoke purpose, reason, or intent, or acknowledge the existence of...

Pure random chance.

I know that you're the Queen of twisting words.

You then went on to describe the term 'victim' in a way that renounces that anyone can truly become a victim.

You've listed premises two of which are the following:

4.) We are here because we chose to be here.
5.) We agreed to the rules of the game and the laws of this reality.

Well, right there you've started with a premise that many people will not accept.

In fact, the vast majority of people on this planet believe that they came into being at birth.

So your entire "philosophy" is completely dependent upon reincarnation. And not just any reincarnation! Your philosophy depends upon a consentual reincarnation that assumes that we were a fully conscious beings before coming into this world and that we have been fully instructed on the consequences of coming into this world, and that we have accepted all of the terms to play this game of life before it even gets underway.

That's one hell of a LOT of premises to assume.

The least you can do is tell people that the Law of Attraction only holds under these special conditions:

In fact, for the readers of this thread I'll post all of the premises that you require for your Law of Attraction:


1.) We are spiritual beings having human experiences.
2.) This world is a world of duality, 'good' and 'evil.'
3.) This world is one of life and death and extreme experiences.
4.) We are here because we chose to be here.
5.) We agreed to the rules of the game and the laws of this reality.
6.) We have a will of our own in which to direct our own lives.


Personally, I think that's quite a lot of unproven assumptions. Especially regarding #'s 4 and 5. Even religions that believe in reincarnation don't typically talk about making conscious agreements about rules before entering into an incarnation.

And I also feel that even given those premises you've still got the problem of Free Will to deal with.

If I can only do to you what you attract to yourself, that seems to me that this would limit my Free Will. But maybe our Free Will is limited. I can't say that it's not.

Even so it still seems to be in conflict in principle since other people could only interact with you in ways that you attract. That seems to place a huge restriction on things.

For example, if I'm a bus driver and I've attracted the event of driving a bus load of people off a cliff, then everyone who gets on that bus must have also attracted that same fate to them as well.

This is where I feel that it becomes unreasonable.

I would agree that this is certainly the way the universe appears to work and we have absolutely no proof or even evidence of any kind that would suggest otherwise.

It appears that we do indeed live in a universe where sh!t happens without purpose, reason, or intent.

I believe in pure random chance.

I see.

(Excuse me while I descend into the actuality of the physical universe and examine this event.)

You stated: There is no independent cause for both sets happening simultaneously. In order to explain this one must invoke purpose, reason, or intent, or acknowledge the existence of... Pure random chance.

Now your statement has changed. You are saying there is no "independent" cause for both events happening simultaneously.

I agree with this, but this is not the argument.

My assertion is that every event has cause. This does not mean that every event only has ONE cause. It usually has many causes.

The coconut fell because it was time to fall, it was ripe. The man got hit by the coconut because he walked beneath the tree at the precise time the coconut fell. These are both causes. These two causes become THE CAUSE in total that caused the event of the man getting killed by the coconut.

It could have been prevented. If the man knew more about the danger of coconuts falling from trees at that time of year he may have been more careful. If the owners of the island or resort or property would have harvested the coconuts to prevent this thing from happening, they could have prevented it. So there are more causes. Not being careful, not harvesting the coconuts when they are ready.

The appearance of random chance on this level of thinking is just an observation that two events overlapped and something happened.

Events over lap all the time and that is why things seem to be random. But on this level (physical law and observation) these are all the facts you have to deal with. You do not know the many other causes at work.

If you go on to the spiritual level, perhaps the man was meant to die by being hit on the head... but that is on a different level of thought and not to be considered in this example as it cannot be proven. It is just a belief system.

But I stand by my assertion that all events have cause. All causes that lead up to an event are not known. There are probably many many unknown causes at work with every thought and decision made leading up to that event even when the tree first was planted in the ground and the man decided to go to the tropical location where the tree was located.... all causes.

You missed it JB...




There is no independent cause for the interaction itself.

The events had nothing to do with each other, until...

The interaction...

There is no cause for the interaction itself.

Let's examine this example from a different perspective...

Remove either of the systems and the other would unfold without difference, because they are not dependent on each other.

The question becomes is there a cause for the interaction?

Is there a cause which connects the two sets prior to the interaction? If there is not, then the interaction itself is without cause.

The interaction itself is a product of pure random chance.

That is as simple as it comes.