Well fatalism is pretty much the notion of a fixed unalterable future
and
Free will is pretty much the notion of the ability to do otherwise and affect/change/alter the future
so
I would say they are incompatible using those notions of meaning or defintions.

What other definitions are there?

What is expressed as true always depends on what the expression means, although what is true never depends on what the expression means. What is true never depends on what anyone says is true.

---------- Post added 05-02-2010 at 05:42 PM ----------



To err is human. So we always might be wrong. But that, of course, does not mean that we are not right, and that we cannot know that we are right. The following argument is invalid:

1. I might be wrong about P.

Therefore, 2. I am wrong about P, and I don't know that P is true.

The following argument is valid:

1. I might be wrong about P.

Therefore, 2. It is possible that I am wrong about P, and I am not certain that P is true.

Where P is, 2+2=4, or that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

On the other hand, of course, 2+2 =4 is a necessary truth, and so, it is impossible for it to be false. But, that the Sun will rise tomorrow is a contingent truth, and it is possible for it to be false.

Since it must be true that what is fated will happen , it is logically impossible to avoid your fate, for if you avoid it, it cannot have been your fate in the first place. Therefore, either you did not avoid your fate, or it was not your fate. That is what the term "fate", means.

If a poor child was born in the ghetto, the child's destiny may lie in provety, crime and misery, wouldn't one want to avoid such destiny?

Now I don't think avoiding a destiny is the only approach to the matter, it's also prosuit.

If a child is a prodegy savant, wouldn't it be prone to think it's destiny would lie in the childs gift? I saw a child being only 4 years and was educated doctor, should he suddenly avoid his destiny by giving up his path?

You are using the word destiny with a different meaning here, witch is about "apparent path one will follow in life". Indeed that can be changed, but if we use the word with that other meaning, "path one will follow in life", then destiny cannot be avoided, because whatever you do, even avoidance, is part of it.

But cant the ability to change the future make part of a unaltered future?

That is, I may be making choices, but god, if there is one, may already know ever choice I will make. Thus, the alterations of my free will are already part of the "written', unalterable future.

I agree.

You are using the word destiny with a different meaning here, witch is about "apparent path one will follow in life". Indeed that can be changed, but if we use the word with that other meaning, "path one will follow in life", then destiny cannot be avoided, because whatever you do, even avoidance, is part of it.

In any case, it does not follow from the fact that a proposition is true (or even always true) that we know it is true. Although it does follow from the fact that we know a proposition is true that it is true. Knowledge implies truth; but truth does not imply knowledge.

Knowledge implies. How is this true? Why not the other way around?

Imo that still is within the definition of destiny, just a bit more clear than what other suggest.

Fatalism is incompatible with free will, of course. But since fatalism is clearly false, what does that matter?