I have been thinking about something for a while. I'm going to throw a statement at you guys, and I want to know what you think about it. I myself do not have any strong feelings or opinions regarding the statement below, and that's why I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say about it.

Some of the major events that we humans have caused in our history, happened because they had to. If they for some reason did not happen, similiar event(s) would eventually take place in the future. I'm sure most of you can recall several events that have had a huge impact on history, events that have both caused damage and happiness to us, events that really stood out. If they did not happen back when they did, they would eventually happen later, because the events were inevitable.

There you go. There are no reason for you guys to try over-complicate or twist what's written above. It is what it is, simple as that. Now, do you think this statement is true or false, or maybe a little bit of both? Just write what you feel about it, and reasons why you think it is true or not... and of course try to stay on topic and avoid talking about stuff that would get this topic closed

Well, while the course of history is set by a great master plan, I don't know if all of it is necessarily inevitable. Yes, war and conflict are inevitable because of the ability to choose what we do - that same rebellious nature paved the way for all of the sin, evil, and darkness in this world. There's a day coming soon where that will all change though, and I cannot wait.

I would agree that there are events that had to have happened. It's called destiny, and the parties involved must move forward to come to a conclusion. Talk to anybody about war, and you will usually get an earful about how it is pointless, serves no purpose and that'd we'd be better off just laying down our arms and just say "I'm going to have a drink with the enemy, I refuse to fight!" but I think that mentality is bogus. War brings about the neccesary conclusion to an era, idea, person or whatever. World War 2 comes to mind. There would have to be a time where fascism, communism and capitalism all must butt heads and so World War 2 brought about that because it had to. It was going to be inevitable anyways. You can't have parts of the world picking these philosophies, each claiming they are superior in comparison to the other two, and not have to butt heads.

I don't really know where I'm supposed to go with this question, or if my post even makes sense. I guess in the simple answer, yeah, I believe the statement you provided.

I wish I could answer more clearly than Septimus Signus, but that's an ability I wasn't born with.

It has something to do with culture. The political outcomes depend upon a culture and its values as a whole as well as how this culture is treated inter-culturally. In relation to the statement, the outcomes whether they be international or national events, are often rooted into the culture and society of where they spire from. And whether events transpire further can depend upon inter-cultural relations. And other important factors that may vary wildly depending upon a specific situation. Certain events could be stopped, but were not so because of where they first arose.

There's more to be said, but I'll leave it at that.

You haven't provided any proof, but it's not like you can with this sort of statement. We don't have a time machine to see how different scenarios play out...
I'd say some of the technological achievements had to be made, because history shows that even abstract stuff like calculus was invented simultaneously by two people. Even if Newton or Leibniz suddenly decided 'Screw math' and just stop working, it wouldn't change anything, because their ideas were in practice the same. Two people coming up with a whole branch of math independently makes me think that it was inevitable.
Cold war stimulated progress greatly, but if there was no Cold War, eventually we would fly to space, moon, etc, just later, probably.
So in terms of technology I agree. I'm not so sure about political stuff.

I think there is some truth in what you're saying here. After all, if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki hadn't happened, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall would've happened instead. And as horrible as it seems, that actually sounds like a pretty good trade off to me.

It seems like it could be true, but I think it depends on if you believe in destiny.

Sometimes I move my left arm and think "Destiny wants me to move my left arm" then I quickly pull it back and move my right arm and think "But what if destiny planned for that too!?!?!" Then I confuse myself...

So I don't think about this stuff much.

I don't believe forces are sentient, but regardless, I doubt destiny would worry itself which arm you move in a completely irrelevent situation during contemplation. This does not absolve me of the fact I have done the same as you.

No. Nothing has to happen. And there will always be events throughout human history that you could call "similar" to other events.

What your statement suggests is that fate or destiny exists, and I submit that they do not.

If I may dare to ask, how can you believe this? Is it not obvious that certain outcomes will bring predictable affects? If one does not eat, does not one die? If one commits murder, does not one become hunted? Define 'nothing'..

"Nothing" as in way less literal than what you're taking it as. I don't even know how to explain it other than to tell you to take what I said in context of the first post.

It is true, but that is, oh what is thine term, err, cause and effect? Do not eat, you die. That is predictable, but the events of a human life or that of a political event are not quite as tangible, and therefore, enter the realm of fate and destiny rather than cause and effect. So it is logical to believe that destiny does not exist, especially since it is not tangible and there is no end result we can know of. If you do not eat, you die. We have seen this before. We have NOT, however, seen Velorien's life in its fullest so we can never know what effects options A and B can have.

Nothing, is still something. Something always has to happen due to humanity. Humanity cannot be stopped unless time itself stops.

Or unless they all die. But what I'm trying to say is that no specific event has to happen, as the OP implies.

I think bombs and bullets can suffice for a replacement for the stopping of time, no?

History did not have to happen. Or did it? Our technological evolution had to happen in order to be able to use the internet, or did it? We have to eat to live, or do we? Humanity is not dead, obviously, and as such, the question remains..

You do not have to make sense, or do you?

Well done.

This really sums up what I think of this statement.

This statement suggests that things are supposed to happen, this is an erroneous statement that is actually completely disproved by evolution. What Stephen Jay Gould discovered at the Burgess Shale is the randomness of evolution. Say for example that evolution was a tape recorder, if you reversed it back to say a hundred million years ago there is very, very little chance that it would repeat the same course. Species that thrived in our timeline might have died out, just as species that died out in our timeline might have thrived.

As for the argument that xDragon_Lance seems to be talking about. What you are talking about is causality(cause and effect), one thing happens which causes another thing to happen, this is irrelevant to the OP's statement. You are saying that some things have to happen for other things to happen which is true and rather obvious. The OP is saying that somethings just have to happen for the sake of having happened.

Weird my friend was talking about a book with some similar ideas today. How societies shape self full-filling phrophecy and such.

Scurve or something with an S.

I can agree to a degree that if something didn't happen because it needs a catalyst and eventually when something gets to the boiling point eventually its not a question of "if" its "when".

But if the catalyst is never done or discovered, something else may spark it. And I mean this for massive events like the Holocaust or the Crusades. Not something minor(well compared to the former) like JFK assination or something which could have been difficult or done by chance meeting.

It's not the idea of "nothing has to happen"; something has already happened. A chain of events follow to the present and into the future. In order to understand this, we must look at the past. Something has to happen in order to see what the past is, else there is no point in remembering it for our progression into the future. Do we not learn from our own history? Do we not reflect in order to not make the same mistakes as those who have created that history have as well as to learn from their discoveries? Something, indeed has to happen..

No, the only thing the OP said is that some things were/are/will be inevitable, which is true.

Like I said, what you are saying does not relate to the OP's statement.

How is that different from what I said?

Again, you are taking my comment of "nothing has to happen" way too literally. I do not literally mean "The only thing that can happen is nothing." I mean that no specific event has to happen, so if you go back in time and prevent the holocaust, that doesn't mean the holocaust will inevitably occur sometime later because it has to happen. I'm not arguing against "something has to happen." Obviously things happen, no one is saying they don't. You didn't take my comment in context like I told you to.

@The Lobotomite; Your statement doesn't negate much of what I have proclaimed. Evolutionary arguments are not valid here.