Destiny And Prophecy

[kana]

I was reading Vampmogs question in Angel Fan Club thread and it reads...

5) Do you believe Liam meeting Darla was chance or prophesised to happen? Angel’s been referenced in quite a few prophecies and has taken the special attention of the PTB? Why is he so special?

It made me think of what Skip said. If things were prophesized to happen does this negate free will? Connor was going to be born, by two vampires no less, so if this is going to happen then how could Liam's meeting of Darla be chance? He had to become a vampire because there had to be a vampire with a soul to 'sire' Connor. That was going to happen. Right?

What about Buffy and the Master? She did die by his hands but it doesn't mention Buffy coming back. Let's look at this example more closely.

It seems that no matter what free will Buffy exercises, she was going to die at the hands of the Master. This seems to support Skip's concept. The little choices we make are up to us but the big stuff, like The Master killing Buffy and two vampires squeezing out a kid is something that is destined no matter what you do. In other words, we are not talking about something causal, we are talking about something fated. No matter what A is, B is going to occur.

This is demonstrated in the Wish. Even though events were different from Prophecy girl, The Master still managed to kill Buffy.

We also have Cassie Newton. What she predicted ultimately cam true, no matter what Buffy tried to do. She was going to die! Maybe pre-cogs, such as Cassie write these prophecies and they are going to happen no matter what. However, many of these prophets didn't speak or write English or even in human languanges. Aside from translation issues, there can be so many ways to interpret a prophecies.

Also, how to validate a prophecy? Wesley tried and he was still fooled.

One other question I would like to ask is what in the hell does Lorne read. He has referred to himself as an empath demon as well as being presient. Now Lorne isn't the same as say Barney. Apart from not being a git, Lorne doesn't simply feel the emotions of others when they feel them. He can sense their futures. Are these futures set in stone? It appears that the above evidence points to some events being predestined. Does this justify what happened to Lindsay.

Lindsay asks Lorne whether he thinks a man can change. Lorne talks about it being Angel's plan but when Lindsay offers to sing he shoots him saying that he's heard him sing. He also says that he was never part of the solution and implies he wont be in the future. Does this work in the above theory? If Lindsay is going to do something that means it is preordained to happen. In other words, nothing anyone can do will stop it. Even if Lindsay was killed, if he was definitely going to do something in the future, it means simple death wont stop him. If he signed a contract with W&H it possibly means Lindsay could come back which would support this theory. But if Lorne could see such a thing happening, why shoot him?

Also there is The House Always Wins. What is he Casino owner stealing? If something is definitely going to happen to you then how can that be stolen? Angel's destiny is certainly fuzzy. If Angel destiny is fixed then surely, it's easy to work out if he is the Shanshu boy or if Spike is. One thing seems to be the case. Lorne hasn't heard Spike sing (as far as know or remember). Surely reading him will give an answer? This said, Lorne has often said he things that are vague. It was even joked about by one of his friends. Can Lorne read everything?

It could be that he can sense emotions, intentions and likelihoods surrounding a person's future. If the Casino owner sucks out that person's intention, drive and potential then they wont be what they could be. Maybe this what happened to Angel. I mentioned in another thread that no matter what happens to Angel, helping people will still be a part of him. I think this is evidence of such. As for the Shanshu? As far as I'm concerned, that's open to debate.

What about Buffy's dreams? Did she predict Angelus' arrival? She certainly knew to suspect Jenny was connected. Other examples?

My head hurts. lol.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

If things were prophesized to happen does this negate free will?

My view of prophecy is a little like my view of God’s putative omniscience – just because someone knows that something will happen in future, it doesn’t mean that the choice involved isn’t free, it just means that the person forseeing it has had a sneak preview. Rather like time travel – they know what will happen because time is not linear for some people/gods. Things in the future have happened already, from certain points of view in the timeline. If you’re outside of time, or if you can see the future.

However, I don’t see prophecy quite like omniscience, at least not in the Jossverse, because prophecies exist within time, not outside of it like God - things change because we make them change, by our interactions with prophecy. Sure, Buffy still died…but it didn’t stick! Prophecies are muddy and unreliable at best – difficult to interpret, and can be falsified.

Are these futures set in stone? It appears that the above evidence points to some events being predestined. Does this justify what happened to Lindsay.

There’s an interesting link to Doctor Who here – he talks about certain points of history being fixed, while others are flexible. Perhaps some events are so important that individuals get swept up in them? All the forces of the universe are pushing for them to happen so, there might have been a tiny chance of preventing them, but it’s nigh on impossible?

What about Buffy's dreams?

I was watching “Surprise” last night, and thinking about the prophetic content of her dreams. Some aspects of her dream come true in a literal sense (Joyce drops crockery and asks her if she’s sure she’s ready (for sex/driving!). Others come true in ways that aren’t quite like the dream (Angel does die, but at Buffy’s hands, not Drusilla’s…interesting though, that Dru takes Buffy’s place there…two seers, two lovers of Angel. I read an interesting thread a while ago about the other parallels between Buffy and Dru, but can’t remember them for the life of me.).

So, in terms of how “fixed” the futures are that are shown in Buffy’s dreams, I’d say “not very”, because they require interpretation.

Perhaps the monkey is a prophecy about Andrew’s flying monkeys that attack the school play?

[Nina]

Fantastic thread, and so many topics to talk about.

First, it never occured to me that the prophecy about the Master killing Buffy happened anyway ... this is a nice thing to start with.

Clearly prophecies happen anyway, but the choices of people can change the scenario. When there are more details in the prophecy, the choices made are less important.

I don't remember the used words in the prophecy about Connor's birth. But if the prophecy described Darla and Angel with lot of details, they were chosen to be the vampires since that start. But if it's not clear who the vampires in the prophecy are, they could be candidates to be the parents, and their choices made them the actual parents. The same can be used for the Shanshu prophecy, Angel and Spike can be both candidates ... but one of them will make the 'right' choices and will get it.

But it doesn't matter how it's written, it will happen. You can't run from it, we know that Sahjan tried to do that, he did everything to find a way to stop Connor from killing him but Connor kills him in 'Orgin'. If your destiny is written in a prophecy, it's written in stone. Your choices can change the 'when' and 'how' ... but it will happen.

And another point with Sahjan, he made a fake prophecy. The father will kill the son, with the three signs before it will happen; the earth shakes, the air burns and the sky turns to blood. When the Beast came back, the earth shaked, there was a rain of fire and blood was important to defeat Jasmine, ... after those things Angel killed Connor. So, what was this? Coincidence? A real prophecy? can you create a prophecy?

enough about prophecies;

Lorne and his readings, I can't remember that he was ever wrong. This doesn't mean that what he reads is written in stone, but it can work like the prophecies ... it will happen anyway. Only the 'how' and 'when' can change.
But I'm not sure, prophecies are mostly about big things and they are rare. Lorne can read everybody anytime and it's only about 'big' things when the person in question is going to do big things ... and it happens not long after the reading. I'm not sure what I think about this. If Lorne's readings work like prophecies, they happen anyway. In this case we can understand why they took the time to double cross and kill Lindsay. And it would be prove that the big lines are already planned, that we change the situations and the smaller things but in the end it doesn't matter ... it will happen like it should be. Skip seems to agree with this, but if we have to believe Skip ... everything that Angel and his team did the last years, was because Jasmine wanted them to do those things.

This brings me to NFA and ATF, what did happen there? Did Angel do what everybody always knew that would happen ... or did he suprise the gods/old ones and changed everything? Did Angel's plan work and was it his plan? I think that we will find that one out in ATF, but right now ... I think that Angel suprised the Wolf, Ram and Hart. Which means that they don't know everything about the future ... or Angel changed the future. The last thing is more likely and in that case, we can say that the future isn't written in stone. Some points are, but the choices of people can have big concequences.

So, I think that the results of Lorne's readings aren't written in stone, but they are probably going to happen. The same for Cordelia's visions. Buffy's prophectic dreams have the word 'prophectic', which means that it will probably work like prophecies.

That's what I think right now ... maybe that will change if we find out more about what is happening in ATF.

[kana]

My view of prophecy is a little like my view of God's putative omniscience ? just because someone knows that something will happen in future, it doesn't mean that the choice involved isn't free, it just means that the person forseeing it has had a sneak preview. Rather like time travel ? they know what will happen because time is not linear for some people/gods. Things in the future have happened already, from certain points of view in the timeline. If you're outside of time, or if you can see the future

.

I'll most likely post more extensively later but main problem with knowing what is going to happen is precisely that it is going to happen. If choice is involved then surely, it could happen but it's not definite. There are different possibilities and likelyhoods. Knowing that a future event will happen with absolute certainty, implies that it's fixed and that nothing can change it, if it can be changed was it ever going to happen in the first place? If one prevents a future event from happening then it doesn't happen so it was going to happen. Maybe it would be fated that it would appear to be about to happen so that someone would take an action to prevent such a thing happening, which was also fated.

I've seen Nina has also posted but I'll give everything the once over once I have more time.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

.

I'll most likely post more extensively later but main problem with knowing what is going to happen is precisely that it is going to happen. If choice is involved then surely, it could happen but it's not definite.

It depends what point in time you're looking from. Let's say you had egg and chips for dinner last night. That's definitely happened, and unless someone comes along with a time machine and goes back to yesterday and throws your plate on the floor, or persuades you to have lasagne instead, it's fixed. The fixed nature of yesterday's tea doesn't affect your free will.

So, if I was God, then I'd...probably sit around in my pants all day throwing fireballs at people....but, let's say I wasn't that sort of a God, but your standard all-seeing, all-knowing chap (or chapess), as seen in the bible.

So, if I was that God, then I would be outside of time*, so me knowing that you would definitely have chips and eggs for dinner on Thursday 1st May 2008 would not affect your free will, because he's not choosing the eggs and chips, he's just present in all times all at once, or perhaps outside of time looking in, so it's not about you not being able to choose something else,... he's just operating from a timepoint at which you have already chosen egg and chips.





*But in it too, in whatever complex ways theology wants me to be, eg in the body of my son, but not exactly...and there's a power of three thing going on, but maybe tha'ts Charmed .

[Retrograde]

So, if I was that God, then I would be outside of time, so me knowing that you would definitely have chips and eggs for dinner on Thursday 1st May 2008 would not affect your free will, because he's not choosing the eggs and chips, he's just present in all times all at once, or perhaps outside of time looking in, so it's not about you not being able to choose something else,... he's just operating from a timepoint at which you have already chosen egg and chips.

I think this is probably the best basic description of the idea of fate I've ever heard! (Funnily enough, egg and chips was my choice of dinner last night...coincidence? I think not :P)

I will probably reply to this in more detail when I'm not rushing off to a lecture, but I do think the ideas of fate and destiny play a big role in Buffy/Angel. It's not so much the fact that they KNOW things are going to happen, but that they are pretty sure of the shape of things to come - but not what comes after that. So for example, in Prophecy Girl, the Master DOES kill Buffy - that was prophesised and fated and every other word you want to use for it - so it does happen. But they're not aware that after he has killed Buffy, she will be revived. It's all a matter of saying, we know this, but we don't know this - and that is where the choice comes in.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

I think this is probably the best basic description of the idea of fate I've ever heard! (Funnily enough, egg and chips was my choice of dinner last night...coincidence? I think not :P)

I think Thomas Hardy really meant to mention egg and chips in all his discussions of fate in the Mayor of Casterbridge, but his mean editor must have left it out (sorry, mayors on the brain at the moment).

The question of fate from inside time is a different one though. A prophecy exists within time. If it's possible for someone's mind to travel forward through time, to be like god for a moment, then a prophecy could potentially be "fixed", because the prophet is seeing something that's already happened. But if they're bringing back that information in an imperfect form, there's always the chance that they could have it wrong, or we could interpret it wrong.

EDIT: On the question of prophecy and reliability – you always have to ask, who’s prophesying? Cui…prophecy-o
How do those prophecies come into being? As a vision (often ambiguous, and often had by mad people)? As a dream (all tangled up with random dream stuff like cheese men and monkeys)?

[kana]

I've always had this problem of understanding God and time travel .

I've never understood existing out of time. I suppose as a human with a tiny mind , I can't get my head around it. If one could view time from the outside, we would have to explain the fixed state of some points in time from the outside. Forgetting the problem of omnipotence, the thing that is about to happen in relation hasn't already happened but it an odd state of 'thereness'. Neither past, present, nor future, in relation to the outside viewer.

Going inside time, if such things are fixed, then they are immutable, unchangable. I posited that if this is the case then it's becomes worrying for free will. I a future event exists enough to be scrutinized then surely it's there unchangable, if it is changable then it's not fixed. This would be more subject to the concept of "If A is true then B is true". In case of the lasagne and chips and eggs scenario, the future or past events (which could in the future in relation to the traveller anyway) it's mutable and therefore never fixed anyway if such a thing is possible.

Other paradox, staying inside time is, if you changed a future event after seeing it, then its arguable that it was never going to happen. It exists in a kind of non-existence and was never going to happen. So we no longer have certainties anymore all we have are possibilities which was never part of our free will problem.

If God knows all, he also knows what he is going to do, so has no free will. If he changes his mind then he knew that he was going to change his mind because it was a fixed event that he knew was going to occur. Existing outside time negates choice because choice is meaningless without the existence of time. One cannot change one's mind because without time there cannot be any change.

None of these of course are certainties but I'm just trying get my head around it.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

I've always had this problem of understanding God and time travel .

Oh, it's quite simple. God is a skinny dude in a pinstriped suit who travels through time in a blue box and is AWESOME.

If one could view time from the outside, we would have to explain the fixed state of some points in time from the outside.

Why? There wouldn't be certain points that were fixed, everything would be "fixed" in the same sense that things that have already happened are fixed. They're just fixed like the past.

If we were talking about a theory of fixed points in history (a la Doctor Who), that'd be different, but just talking about God for the moment (ie the God that is not the one written by Russell T Davies ).

Forgetting the problem of omnipotence, the thing that is about to happen in relation hasn't already happened but it an odd state of 'thereness'. Neither past, present, nor future, in relation to the outside viewer.

Why's omnipotence a problem? I would've thought it was rather a handy skill.

Ahem. Anyway, from God's point of view, the same event could be about to happen, happening, has happened? all at once. Eternity being like one of those figure of 8 things, all paradoxical and impossible from a human perspective inside time. Perhaps "outside of time" is the wrong way to phrase it. It's more like being simultaneously present in every moment of time at once ? omnipresent across time as well as space. God is outside of/beyond linear time, in my understanding (forgetting the whole "he doesn't exist" problem?the ontological problem).

Going inside time, if such things are fixed, then they are immutable, unchangable.
I posited that if this is the case then it's becomes worrying for free will. I a future event exists enough to be scrutinized then surely it's there unchangable, if it is changable then it's not fixed.

Not if you're God. He can do anything But, to be less facetious, the reason it isn't a problem for free will is that it's NOT fixed from the point of view of linear time, only from the point of view of eternity. Or rather, it's not "fixed" at all, that might be the misleading word I'm using? it's just something that's been freely chosen by the time you get to a certain point in time?and if you exist along all points (or squiggles) of the timeline (timecircle?) then you've already experienced it before it happens for the person who's "trapped" in linear time. But they're still free in the moment of choice, it's just that you've got a sneak preview (or memory, depending on how you're thinking about it.

Coming back to the rest cos have to nip out

[EvilVampire]

Leaving “Outsidetimeness” (yes, I just made that word up ) aside for a moment, whether prophecy and foreknowledge are problematic for free will depends on what “free will” means. Ok, I'm stating the obvious , but what I'm trying to get at is that compatibilists claim that free will is compatible with determinism.

According to compatibilists, even if there are no actual open futures (i.e., even if, from a full description of the universe at a time t and the laws of physics, it follows the description of the universe at any time u, such that t < u), then free will exists.

There are different compatibilist theories, but often, some compatibilists claim that belief in incompatibility between free will and determinism is the result of a confusion about the meaning of “free will” (according to this, deniers are using a definition concocted by a few philosophers, which doesn't match common usage), and/or of causation and compulsion.

On the other hand, those who oppose compatibilism often say that compatibilists are the ones who use a definition that doesn't match common usage.

As for me, I even wonder whether there's some common usage, so I'm confused. But just wanted to add some confusion to the mix.

Anyway, if compatibilism is true, prophecies of course are no threat to free will. On the other hand, if it isn't, then prophecies may well be a threat, and I don't see how (full) foreknowledge would not result in determinism, and thus lack of free will. A "partly determined" future would be more difficult to interpret in terms of how much it challenges free will, assuming compatibilism is false. On one hand, it might not be full determinism. On the other hand, prophecies could threaten free will even under some compatibilist theories of free will, seems they would appear to compel (see, for instance, two of the cases I mention below - namely, the cases where A=C)).

Then again, it might be that the common meaning of free will (if there's one) makes it impossible regardless of whether there are prophecies, or determinism. I don't know.

As for outsidetimeness as an explanation to combine foreknowledge and lack of determinism, I'm not sure it's meaningful: our language seems to require time, and it doesn't seem possible to even imagine how an out-of-time existence would be like.

In any event, even if it meaningful, that explanation doesn't seem compatible with interaction between the time-bound world and the timeless entity. Suppose the timeless entity intervenes and gives someone a prophecy. When did that happen?

At time t, the (allegedly) timeless entity G would be performing an action: namely, giving time-bound entity A some information about what happens at time u (t < u).

Now, when did the timeless entity see what happens at u, so that G can later, at t, tell A about it? (if the use of tenses here doesn't make sense, I get the impression that that's a consequence of G's not making sense in our human language ).

Still, let's say (I guess that's the standard timeless answer ) that G didn't see it at any time, G sees it all at once, and interacts with A at the same time. That also seems to result in contradiction. For, G says a word to A from time t0 to t1 (saying words takes some time), and the next word from t2 to t3 (I suppose there's a pause between words, if G wants to be understood, and that pause also takes time), and so on, and it's, to say the least, unclear to me how it is that G is timeless.

But regardless, it may be my lack of imagination, so "G" is meaningful and G can see everything at once (whatever that means; I confess I don't understand how "at once" wouldn't require time too, but anyway that could always be my lack of imagination, so let's assume outsidetimeness works).

There's still the problem of introduced information. The prophecy, once told to A (at time t), contrains the future of the world even from the time-bound (as opposed to timeless) perspective - or, in other words, from the perspective of linear time, the future is unchangeable (at least, the prophesized future).

For, suppose at t, timeless infallible G (assuming timelessness makes sense and all the related things we may have to assume here) tells A that , at u, (t < u), P will occur.

For instance, G tells A that, at u, C will kill B. There's nothing A or anyone can do (despite having that information) to prevent C from killing B at u, because from the prophecy and the assumed characteristics of G, it follows F: "at u, C kills B"; so that (? F) would result in contradiction, and is thus impossible. It gets funnier if A=C, and even more so if A=B=C.

In fact, it follows from statements describing events that occurred in the time-bound or linear-timed universe, prior to u, that, at u, C kills B, given that the description involves the action taken by G at t - and here, G is an timeless being that exists in the linear time universe at t; to me, if "G" is meaningful, G's intervention results in a contradiction, but even if, for whatever reason, that is not so, then G is, again, a timeless being that acts at time t, providing information about future time u, and by doing so constraining the future of the time-bound universe even from the perspective of linear time .

(Some but not all forms of) compatibilism would save the day, though (if they're true, and I'm not saying or suggesting they are. ), at least from the challenge to free will by means of the future's being fixed. They wouldn't help with the other problems (in my view) G has.

ETA (could not resist):

So, if I was God, then I'd...probably sit around in my pants all day throwing fireballs at people....but, let's say I wasn't that sort of a God, but your standard all-seeing, all-knowing chap (or chapess), as seen in the bible.

Do they have to be fireballs, or do alternative weapons (e.g., plagues, curses, floods, lightning, rain of fire and brimstone, etc.) work as well?

[Boltmaiden]

Uh...wow all of you are way smarter than I am, you all are able to wrap your head around concepts this girl can't. I love this forum!

So with fear of dumbing down the thread I will tell you all what I think about the subject.

My belief actually is a contradiction but I will do my best to show what I think, ahem.

I do not believe that we are puppets on a string, foolishly thinking we have control of our choices when in reality everything is predestined. But I do think some major parts of my life were meant to be.

I guess my point of view, my philosophy, is like the concept those books that have many different endings have. Does anyone remember or know what I am referring to? By deciding on a course of action during the story you get a certain outcome, go back and pick another route and your ending changes. Thus the choices I make determine which path and thus ending I get. And the possibilities are almost endless because each decision takes you to a different set of next choices etc. Thus putting that to real life,the possibilities (choices) for your life are endless.

However I also believe that certain aspects, like for me personally, my son was going to be apart of my life no matter what. He was part of why I am here and I see him as fate because the circumstances of him being on this earth were what you would probably catergorize as against the odds, and for me I believe that it was because it was his time to be here and it gave me one of the major purposes of my life. He was suppose to happen, one of my gifts from God, but how I affect him and influence him is up to me.

So in a nut shell I believe certain aspects of my life are Fate, gifts if you will to help shape my life, help explain my purpose here, but the journey and how it ends is up to me.

Good gracious did that make any sense at all? Maybe I should keep my concepts to myself

Prophecies are an extremely interesting subject as well but I am to tired get really into it now, but I always found it fascinating, the influence they have on the choices the characters make anytime prophecies are part of the story. Buffy and the Master are a perfect example as others in this thread have already brought up. Another time to discuss.

On a quick side note, this thread topic is brought up in a book I was given for my birthday called the Psychology of Joss Whedon And I just read the chapter on this subject, just thought the timing is kinda neat.

[kana]

I was going to quote people but I decided, too much and my brain would hurt. But I have seen some interesting arguments.

The first question I'd look at is the whole idea of something being fixed. In the fatalist argument. I'm not sure of prophecies (if we pretend we are hardcore believers) talk about specific fixed events but allows for freedom, kind of like compatibilism I guess. Or that all events are fixed, in the past present and future.


Are we talking about different types of fatalism? The no matter what happens in A, B will occur seems to imply a kind of compatibilist argument I guess but the concept of A and B being fixed is more like the hard core determinist argument: Everything is fixed.

In te Cassie Newton case, I'm more or less cool with it. It could possibly apply to any of these theories. If Cassie thinks she will definitely die on the that specific day, but still believes Buffy will 'make a difference' maybe she believes in the compatibilist argument or the fatalist equivalent. Some things are fixed and some things aren't. Maybe this is what Gunn was talking about. 'That final shot' is predicted because it's an uncertainty.

Even more odd is what Lorne reads. If Lorne knew that Lindsay was going to do something that would merit his killing it presents us with a problem. Lindsay didn't get to fulfil his 'destiny'. If destiny is fixed then he was never going to commit that action that Lorne was supposedly trying prevent. Lorne perhaps is predicting an alternative future if he hadn't intervened, almost like seeing an alternative universe. Is this enough to warrant his killing?

[EvilVampire]

Even more odd is what Lorne reads. If Lorne knew that Lindsay was going to do something that would merit his killing it presents us with a problem. Lindsay didn't get to fulfil his 'destiny'. If destiny is fixed then he was never going to commit that action that Lorne was supposedly trying prevent. Lorne perhaps is predicting an alternative future if he hadn't intervened, almost like seeing an alternative universe. Is this enough to warrant his killing?

If destiny is fixed, Lorne was destined to kill Lindsay (if I read you correctly, that is). Instead of "destiny", maybe I'd prefer to say that if determinism is true, given the past, what happened was the only possible future to that past.

But if you mean something else by "destiny", in any case, if destiny is fixed, then Lindsay will do whatever he was destined to do (after being resurrected, perhaps, or after surviving the bullet, or something like that).

[Cinderela]

Uh...wow all of you are way smarter than I am, you all are able to wrap your head around concepts this girl can't. I love this forum!

So with fear of dumbing down the thread I will tell you all what I think about the subject.

My belief actually is a contradiction but I will do my best to show what I think, ahem.

I do not believe that we are puppets on a string, foolishly thinking we have control of our choices when in reality everything is predestined. But I do think some major parts of my life were meant to be.

However I also believe that certain aspects, like for me personally, my son was going to be apart of my life no matter what. He was part of why I am here and I see him as fate because the circumstances of him being on this earth were what you would probably catergorize as against the odds, and for me I believe that it was because it was his time to be here and it gave me one of the major purposes of my life. He was suppose to happen, one of my gifts from God, but how I affect him and influence him is up to me.

So in a nut shell I believe certain aspects of my life are Fate, gifts if you will to help shape my life, help explain my purpose here, but the journey and how it ends is up to me.

Good gracious did that make any sense at all? Maybe I should keep my concepts to myself

It made *perfect* sense, Boltmaiden! Very neatly summed up my own view! For me, personally, I believe it was set in stone that I marry my husband. Stupidly, we *both* tried for years to avoid it, but no matter *what* choices we each made individually, we ended coming back together, over and over again. I believe there are certain events that are "etched in stone" and will happen no matter what. However, the *choices* we make along the road are our own. In linear time, this would mean that starting at point *A*, you chose your own (potentially roundabout) way to end up at point *B*. Point *B* will be your destination regardless of the road you took to get there. Just *how many* "point B's* there are in a life is up to individual belief.

In te Cassie Newton case, I'm more or less cool with it. It could possibly apply to any of these theories. If Cassie thinks she will definitely die on the that specific day, but still believes Buffy will 'make a difference' maybe she believes in the compatibilist argument or the fatalist equivalent. Some things are fixed and some things aren't. Maybe this is what Gunn was talking about. 'That final shot' is predicted because it's an uncertainty.

"Make a difference" could be open to interpretation. Cassie believes her death is one of my point *B*'s (fixed no matter what happens) from above. But, Buffy "making a difference" is her interpretation of what she has seen. She wasn't referring to Buffy making a difference about whether she died or didn't die on that particular day.

Even more odd is what Lorne reads. If Lorne knew that Lindsay was going to do something that would merit his killing it presents us with a problem. Lindsay didn't get to fulfil his 'destiny'. If destiny is fixed then he was never going to commit that action that Lorne was supposedly trying prevent. Lorne perhaps is predicting an alternative future if he hadn't intervened, almost like seeing an alternative universe. Is this enough to warrant his killing?

This is totally odd. Considering what we know about Lilah (not being allowed to die) and W & H contracts being "for all eternity", how was Lidsay able to be killed in any way, by Lorne or anyone else? Maybe it was his destiny to be murdered by Lorne. Maybe he was rendered human by the SP after YW and came back in NFA as a human. Maybe Lorne knew it was his destiny to murder Lindsay and saw what Lindsay would do in the future if he wasn't stopped during NFA.

We haven't known Lorne to be wrong, so if we believe in his abilities, then it should be enough to warrant his killing Lindsay. (So, so hard for me to say, because I the character!)

If destiny is fixed, Lorne was destined to kill Lindsay (if I read you correctly, that is). Instead of "destiny", maybe I'd prefer to say that if determinism is true, given the past, what happened was the only possible future to that past.

But if you mean something else by "destiny", in any case, if destiny is fixed, then Lindsay will do whatever he was destined to do (after being resurrected, perhaps, or after surviving the bullet, or something like that).

Or Lindsay *already* did what he was destined to do, so was expendable at any point after that. As I said above, maybe it was *Lorne's* destiny to kill Lindsay......and Lorne chose his own moment to do so.

I don't see how the idea of *prophecy* and *free will* are totally at odds with each other. I see *prophecy* as being a fixed point and *free will* the route we travel to reach those fixed points.

[lee]

Its like Skip said, if you want to eat a cheese sandwich or something like that, thats up to to you, but the big stuff, Darla pregnant, going to Pylea etc, is all pre-destined.
^^And talking of Lorne/Lindsey, isnt it obvious Lorne killing Lindsey was the destiny.
When Lorne said ''ive heard you sing'' he probably knew for a long time he would be the one killing Lindsey. I mean, look at the way lorne acted in NFA