Fatalism and Determinism

To what degree can an individual’s choices and actions influence the direction of his or her life?

Some people believe that you can completely control you own life but others think that fate controls your life. Two examples of literature that explain how you can control your life and life styles are Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer and If written by Rudy Kipling. Into the Wild is about a man who wants to completely change his life. But If explains how if you do these certain things it will make you a man but if you don't then you cannot become a "true man." With multiple pieces of evidence Krakauer's argument that you can influence your life by changing the way you act is stronger than Kipling's theory that only you can control your life.

One of the strengths of the determinist viewpoint is that it is hard to argue against. There are definite patterns and connections throughout the physical universe and the biological realm. There is no denying that fact. Just look at modern chemistry or how everything is made up of waves. Also, you can’t prove that you ever had more than one choice since there can only ever be one choice. In other words, once the moment is gone it is impossible to say that things could have been different since there is no going back. It is also hard to deny that some of our actions are a result of certain causes. You can always argue that something in your past affected your choices in the present.

Puts forward the issue that God knows future actions people so they can’t be free and that if our choices are free then God cannot have foreknowledge of them and hence isn’t omniscience

Knowing the future can have good effects, such as leading to preventing bad decisions or diseases, however, the negative aspects outweigh the positive things because it would lead to stress and take the focus off of enjoying life. Destiny is inevitable. In Spielberg’s Minority Report and Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, the main characters learn what their futures hold. This causes fear and stress, as they do everything they can to avoid their fates. In “DNA as Destiny,” David Duncan wishes his DNA had not been tested. Although knowing the future can help lead to disease prevention, there are too many disadvantages of having this information, and causes a person knowing his or her fate more harm than good.

All christians agree that God is omniscient. He knows “the beginning from the end, from ancient times to what is still to come” (Isaiah 49:10 NIV). However the doctrinal debate on this issue is on the extent of the foreknowledge of God. Some hold the belief that God foreknows all things because he ordains all things; this is known as the Calvinist View. Others hold a similar belief but instead of God ordaining all things, He foreknows all because the future is simply there for him to know; this is known as the Simple Foreknowledge View. And a third view which holds that God

The experimenters had multiple intentions of their study. First of all, the experimenters seek to provide validation of a modified version of Shen and colleagues’ health related fatalismo measure. Fatalismo is a general belief, held by many in the Caribbean, that “life is a result of fate and that what occurs in one’s life is beyond one’s control” (Piña-Watson & Abraído-Lanza, 2017). The modification to the Shen and colleagues’ measure was simplified language, as to be easily understandable by adolescents (Piña-Watson & Abraído-Lanza, 2017).

“Believe that fate is the optimal combination of choice and chance.” -Cindy Hilsheimer. Fate determines a person's life and destiny. Our choices are the ones that direct us to our fate. No matter what, our fate is already written and nothing can be changed about it. It can come in many different ways as in a serendipity or as in misfortune. I believe everything happens for a reason and we just need to keep on living in order to one day see or seek this fate that will come to us eventually.

Fatalism revolves around the infallibility foreknowledge of a higher being that knows all and the inability for the human act to be free. Thus, if there is a higher being that knows everything that will occur in the future, then we have no control over the future. In the same sense, if there is a higher being that knew everything in the past, then we were in another being’s control in the past. This fatalist argument which is over the existence of a deity and the existence of human free will has caused a dilemma between incompatibilist either rejecting infallible foreknowledge or free will which is presented in the argument. Some incompatibilist have the belief that the world is not deterministic, causing their to be some form of free will.

I am truly a believer that life is what you make of it. That my own reality is molded by my thoughts, which leads to shape my actions. Why wouldn’t anyone want to be in full of control of themselves? Learning yourself and knowing how you would act makes this even all more essential to grasp. Everyone should oversee their own lives. When someone isn’t then what really is

God is omniscient in that He knows everything and knows all things possible. God knows the past, present, and the future. In fact, God knows each man on earth. An example of such knowledge is that God

There are two fundamental beliefs that are common in all the major religions in the world. One of them is that God is all knowing, or omniscient. This means that God knows everything that is currently occurring, everything that has ever happened, and everything that will ever happen. The knowledge about the future is captured in a familiar statement: “He knows the end from the beginning.” In other words, nothing ever happens without God ever knowing about it. Nothing is ever a surprise, since he already knew it would happen.

I do not think about theory of fatalism normally, but I only think about it when I have bad happen because if I believe that everything are pre-determined, I do not need to frustrate or blame myself for few days.

It is the opinion of The Author that the most intellectually exhausted debate in the Western European tradition revolves around the existence of free will. This question has been so thoroughly ground to a pulp that if you look up the Wikipedia article on it, one of the first things you will encounter is a simple graphical taxonomy of the possible positions one can take on the issue, which allows one, assuming one believes that their position has not been preordained, to determine where one stands without dragging out the same fatigued arguments for yet another obnoxious ballyhoo. While other traditions have also dealt with this subject extensively, they have, for the most part, either been prescient or blessed enough to find other, less mind-numbingly intractable issues to validate their participation in humanity’s unofficial, though remarkably uncontested universal pastime, namely blowing each other to smithereens, which, despite it’s best efforts, inclusive humanism has roundly failed to supplant, although it may be winning the war while losing all of the battles (Pinker). It may even be possible that the intractability of this debate has contributed to the resounding success of the various and sundry teams that Western Europe has sent to the international league, since, as a central aspect of the schism between Protestant and Catholic dogmas, it may have directly or indirectly provided the ideological justification for the vast majority of European religiopolitical

I have always been an existentialist and always have loved a multitude of options in my life. I believe that there is no greater being that controls my life rather I control my life; however, others might disagree with this idea. One knows one's duty and purpose in life and ,therefore, must execute it. From the moment of birth, one’s life has already been decided. In essence, what should I do, follow my heart and take responsibility for it, or follow what others have set for me already? This explains the conflicts of existentialism and determinism. These two ways of thinking clash with one another. They have two separate ideas of how humans should live. Even though they clash, I think in some cases; these two philosophies go very