Free will or destiny?

Question

Can there be both?

Answer 1

your free will makes your destiny.

Answer 2

In a sense both exist simultaneously. The destiny of the world and governments is fixed while at the same time individuals are free to respond to events according to the choice of heart.

That does not necessarily mean that any particular individual is destined to - as Hitler did commit atrocities -- or become a saintly ruler. The problem is complex beyond my ability to state exactly how things work.

Still, we have been given many things to help us understand what is going on.

For example, how does God make prophecies come true in regard to the doings of kings or governments? This subject is treated here:
http://bythebible.page.tl/How-Prophecies-Work.htm

Jesus, the prophecy stated, had to do a great number of exact acts. Was he a robot? Had he no choice in this?
That subject is treated here:
http://bythebible.page.tl/Fate-%26-Free-Will.htm

Then of course, remaining is our free will. That subject is found here:
http://bythebible.page.tl/Predestination-Debunked.htm
------------

The way I understand it may be illustrated this way. Comparing God to a man that is going to pour himself a glass of water from a bottle.

The man knows without a doubt that he will take this bottle and fill the glass with water. However, does this man care if a particular water molecule from the bottle's bottom or top enters the glass? No, this is immaterial as long as the glass is filled.

Similarly, God knows exactly detailedly that at certain points in history something must take place. He knows that e.g. at Armageddon the unbelievers will be destroyed, and that the believers shall be saved.

Does God care if person A, B, or C chooses to be the unbeliever or the believer. Not really. He gives everybody the same chance to do his will. The one that does it gets "in the glass" so to say.

Answer 3

Destiny gives you no choice.

Suppose every morning I stuck a revolver to my head, spun the barrel and clicked the trigger. If it went off then that wouldn't be destiny, that would just be stupid.

Free will is what makes our lives unique. If someone pre-ordained that I would be rich, then why should I work for what would be anyway? And if I were to be poor - what would the use be in working?

We make our lives whatever we can, and leave the rest of life that is beyond our control as it is. We can't change if a rock falls from space, so why worry about it?

Work hard for the things you want. You can get them if you try.

Answer 4

A 100% Yes!
But only if you change all your thinking and think like this!

Eventually we, if we persist to evolve or just exists, the world around us will change and we will have to change with it. That may mean that we out live our physical body and change or develop into spiritual beings or some form, k? But, we will still be governed by our environment whatever form we take, so!!!!

We never actually have free will under those circumstances, because all though we have choices, we are limited in those choices, therefore the element of destiny will be present.

With that so far i hope?

Now for free will to coexist, one would have to be in 100% control of everything, period, that to enable one to control ones destiny, only one must ask the question....When one has reached his/her objective destiny, would that person Cease to exist? No, ther for one could easily assume, their destiny will never be sought, and they will continue for eternity.

Answer 5

Well, it's depend on what is the meaning of destiny for you.
Why is that?
Well, it's because, for me, destiny is the future that I made, not future that it has to be like that.
Why I said that future is something that I made?
Because future is the cause of what I do.
example1: if you study hard enough, you'll get a good grade.
And destiny is nothing to do with my grade.
example2: If you met a pretty gal/Handsome guy who fall in love at you at the first sight and you live happily everafter.
That event is not destiny, it's your luck, and the rest who made you live happyly everafter is you and yourself.
example3: If you see Michael Jordan as a super basketball player, and you say, it's his destiny...
It's wrong! Michael Jordan can reach "super basketball player" because he had his hardwork first before he become one.
Because one who being called Genius or Special or something like that, it's because what they do to achieve that title, they don't get it just like a flipping hand.

So! for me, the answer is free will
+ Luck sometimes ^^

Answer 6

The Calvinistic theology has been drummed into people for so long there is a reflex reaction in many people to say there is no free will will. This also implies that God created people as logs in the fire. I think God is better than this, I mean it is kind of like burning flies with a magnifying glass.

If we put aside the religious arguments there was some thought that everything is a deterministic sum of forces at some kinetic level. But quantum physics to the rescue, there are quantum movements of atoms that cannot be predicted.

I am sure there is free will. :)

Answer 7

Yes. I believe in a combination of the two. Your destiny is altered by the choices you make. You make choices that either lead you to or defer you from your destiny and what fate has decided for you.

For me, destiny and fate describe the ultimate passion of one's life. If a person has a true passion for helping others, then they can use their free will to decide to become a doctor in order to fulfill that destiny. I believe that passion helps us know WHAT our destiny is, since there will never be someone mailing all of our destinies out on little cards. ;-)

Answer 8

Yes there can be both. Your destiny is always changeable by free will but some times it is to late to change your destiny.

Answer 9

Think of it this way -
(1) There exist now propositions about everything that might happen in the future.
(2) Every proposition is either true or else false.
(3) If (1) and (2), then there exists now a set of true propositions that, taken together, correctly predict everything that will happen in the future.
(4) If there exists now a set of true propositions that, taken together, correctly predict everything that will happen in the future, then whatever will happen in the future is already unavoidable.
(5) Whatever will happen in the future is already unavoidable.
The main objections to arguments like this have been to premises (2) and (4). The rationale for premise (2) is that it appears to be a fundamental principle of semantics, sometimes referred to as The Principle of Bivalence (or just Bivalence for short). The rationale for premise (4) is the claim that no one is able to make a true prediction turn out false.

So - there seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 10

Yes. You can think of destiny as a outline and free will as a way of filling it in.