There are dozens of theories on the role of mankind in the universe, and the degree to which we are able to make our own choices, but none are truly convincing to me as they all seem so definite, with the top-two being the most so. Determinists argue with one main point:
We have a path that we must follow, and we do so under the guise of free-will. Perhaps because the nature of the universe is so that it is necessary for us to have that guise.

Free-will supporters believe that we have the freedom to do as we please with no interaction from nature.

I believe something else however. I believe that Determinism and Free-will coexist.
It is my opinion that the Universe is cyclical in nature [as everything else is] and that when one "version" ends the other begins. I believe that the universe begins and ends in a way that is repeated exactly the same way in every instance. [i will state my hypothesis on that subject later on with an annotation of [1]]

You see, I feel that, while our actions may seem to have consequential effects to us and those closest to us, we as individuals have no real impact on society as a whole. Society ebbs and flows like the ocean, and human sociology is predictable in that we may predict the rise and fall of governments, the state of the economy, and the reactions of nations to certain stimuli. So I believe that it is possible that, while we have the free will to do as we please individually, we -as a species- are on a determined path that no one individual can stop. Furthermore, I believe that if we group together to fight this sociologically determined path, that we will instead simply be following the trends of our humanity and ultimately allow the true "destiny" to come to fruition.

And, if there are in fact other life-forms, which I believe there are, they too may share the luxury of free-will, for it is inconsequential to the ultimate state of the universe.

that is not to say, however that we may not be part of the determined plan -which is most likely a state of perfection, which I will note also later in the same hypothesis as aforementioned- we may play a role in initializing some cosmic reaction, or perhaps we send a probe through a worm-hole some day, or SOMETHING; or we may simply be a collection of energy that for no reason or purpose at all has created a "society" and has begun to ponder such things.

regardless, I believe that we HAVE free will as individuals, I believe that we can do as we please, or not -if we so choose; but I think that in the grand scheme of things, we are powerless to the forces of nature, and its everlasting determination to revert to a "perfect" state.

[1] Speaking of trying to revert to a "perfect" state. Doesn't this sound like something we know about on a microscopic level? Energy vessels colliding and interacting, exchanging and re-distributing energy in a constant effort to attain a perfect state [or a state of neutrality or energyless-ness.
To describe my idea of the state of the universe I will repost my post from another forum:

---

Could it be that our universe is in the shape of a ball; A ball of enormous size that is composed of flowing, overlapping and ever-changing fabric -that is, the space-time fabric?
could it then follow that there are yet still other such balls all filled with exorbitant amounts of energy -as would be contained in a universe?
And, of course, there would most likely be universes of different sizes and perhaps of different energy make-ups. perhaps, different "charges".

do you see where I am going? It could be that there is no vessel that contains the universe, it could be that there are trillions upon trillions of universes that become the sort of electrons and protons and neutrons -and conversely the positrons, and other such anti-energy "capsules"- of an even greater existence. That would leave the still smaller galaxies and solar systems to be the make up of these electrons, quarks, leptons, and muons and other such antiparticles and neutrinos that make up said greater existence.

of course, there is no science in what I speak of, it is simple free-thought. I just thought I'd present it as a fun possibility.

---

So these "ball-like" universes would contain exorbitant amounts of energy, and some would not. And some would have more, and some would have less. And within each ball, there would be transfers of energy to different levels and layers [perhaps that is what worm-holes are].
anyway, these balls would likely collide since there would be many of them [just as there are many atoms and electrons and such] and they would transfer energy to one another; and some would grab energy while some would release it.

Ultimately, there would be those that would have none and then after a transfer of energy gain the ability to transfer within itself, or transfer to others. There would also be those that had energy, and finally gave it all away, to be left in a state of perfection; of stability.

Then, out of sheer happenstance, It would be struck by another universe, and energy would pour into it with enough force that the two would repel and be along their own respective ways. In this way, we may explain the Big Bang theory. That enormous explosion -of sorts- of energy.
of course, to the universes, this would all happen almost simultaneously, at a speed -to them- that would rival the speed of light -to us-. but to us, these event would take TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of years, given the enormity of the universe.

I am rambling now, I'd much rather hear thoughts and criticisms now so that I may either throw this hypothesis out, or build on it...

-------
            ...life is good...
...mai ho oni i ka wai lana malie...

This is view of the world determinism is totally different from the traditional 'fate' view in which you 'will' end up rich/poor, you 'will' marry so and so, you 'will' be killed by whatever.  This form of fate determines how your life will play out but it's totally different from the way you have interpreted determinism.

It's rather trivial to say well fate and free will co-exist because we're all gonna die but we all have free will to determine what we're going to do...  You don't actually answer the question of whether our lives are predetermined or not.

-------
As I walk through the valley of death, I fear no one, for I am the meanest mother fu*ker in the valley. -Gen. Patton

what I have done is take the IDEA of determinism and used what I BELIEVE is the case.

there are many types of determinism, this being just another one of them.

and my idea is not that we die but we have free will. please re read the post and ask a question if you do not understand something, I know I am not a poet, so some things may not be worded correctly, but i am quite sure that it makes sense, as i have posted similar material on other philosophy fora.

-------
            ...life is good...
...mai ho oni i ka wai lana malie...

---

Determinists argue with one main point:
We have a path that we must follow, and we do so under the guise of free-will. Perhaps because the nature of the universe is so that it is necessary for us to have that guise.

Free-will supporters believe that we have the freedom to do as we please with no interaction from nature.

---

Ok so you define 'traditional' determinism in the 'fate' view.  That's fine, lets see where you take it.

---

I believe something else however. I believe that Determinism and Free-will coexist... I believe that the universe begins and ends in a way that is repeated exactly the same way in every instance... while our actions may seem to have consequential effects to us and those closest to us, we as individuals have no real impact on society as a whole... human sociology is predictable... So I believe that it is possible that, while we have the free will to do as we please individually, we -as a species- are on a determined path that no one individual can stop

---

You claim that there is in fact no pre-determined path of peoples lives because they can choose.  Yet this choice is an illusion because society has its own destiny.  Ok that makes sense.  Civilizations will rise and fall but people within those civilizations make their own life-choices.

Ok now this is where I'm unsatsified.  You have provided a reasonable interpretatation of reality.  I can accept your interpretation.  My problem is that you haven't actually stated anything novel or unique in the sense that you don't actually 'refute' the traditional free-will argument.  You, in essence, restate the traditional free-will argument.  

The free-will argument says nothing about civilizations or society as a whole or death - it only discusses the individual at their level of consciousness.  It only describes the nature of their choices, nothing more.

The same goes with traditional determinism.  It describes only the nature of an individual's choices.  

What you have done is the said:
1. Let's take determinism at a universal level - it is clear that we are all fated to die, the earth is fated to be engulfed by the sun, and that the universe is fated to be cyclical (let's assume it's true)
2. Now let's take free-will at a personal level - people have the freedom to make their own choices.
3. Therefore, determinism and free will co-exist.

There is a serious flaw with that analysis in that you aren't performing a genuine comparison between the two schools of thought.  Nobody from the free-will school of thought argues that you have the freedom to change whether or not you will die, or whether or not society will follow a cycle.  It's quite clearly outside the realm of personal will-power.  Since the free-will argument is in total agreement with you, and the determinism argument is still in total disagreement with you (on an individual level), I think it's clear that you have merely restated the free-will argument in more elaborate terms.

---

Furthermore, I believe that if we group together to fight this sociologically determined path, that we will instead simply be following the trends of our humanity and ultimately allow the true "destiny" to come to fruition.

---

I'm not sure how this explains or furthers your argument.  People within societies often band together to fight what they feel is an inevitable fate (Hitler's Germany, for instance) only to seal their "destiny" (the fall of the Third Reich).  Yet this seems to have nothing to do with free will or determinism on an individual level.  Your statement merely explains - in slightly more detail - what it means for society to have a 'predetermined' path.

-------
As I walk through the valley of death, I fear no one, for I am the meanest mother fu*ker in the valley. -Gen. Patton

To make it short [i WILL go into detail later] the brain would act as a computing center. taking in stimuli and storing them. Then, when faced with a question it will bring up all previoius stimuli [the causes and effects of past choices and experiences] and sort of work them out systematically to yield several possible solutions. The observer -the evolutionary advantage- that is the decision making portion of our mind would then sort through these possibilities and decide which it will choose.

It is my opinion that this observer is still part of our brain, and is not outside the constructs of chemistry and physics, but i believe that in some way it MUST be devoid of the limitations of those things.

I believe that our mind is a contradicting system, so that it works together to generate the best possible outcomes [by using the determinable, physical system, and the somewhat irrational, human system]

In this way, we can explain why sometimes humans do things that go against all logic [even against what they "know deep down" is correct] and why sometimes we act involuntarily [ie a ball is flying towards you, your brain receives this information, compares it to past times when balls have been speeding towards you and/or others, and decides that the most logical solution is to move you --which is why sometimes you are surprised that you moved away in time--]

Eh, its getting too long and my thoughts are all disheveled so i'll stop now before I make incorrect statements or misuse a term or two

-------
            ...life is good...
...mai ho oni i ka wai lana malie...

---

I believe that the universe begins and ends in a way that is repeated exactly the same way in every instance.

---

So you believe that there are alternate dimensions that must be infinite in number to satisfy the theory of everything happening in every instance? I believe this is the '11th dimension', though I'm not sure.

---

You see, I feel that, while our actions may seem to have consequential effects to us and those closest to us, we as individuals have no real impact on society as a whole

---

You talk about society as though it is central to the universe. Who can decide what an impact is on society? To what scale is this measured? What would I have to do in order to satisfy this? Anyone can have an impact on our contemporary society easily, by poisoning the only water source locally thus wiping out a good portion of the neighboring country. This would be snowballed by the media to make the world gear thy neighbor killing thee. However, to an external being or watchman outside of the human race and the culture of earth, this may not classify as a 'difference' or 'impact.' Thus, your idea here is entirely subjective.