Final answer:
The question delves into the philosophical debate of fate versus free will, suggesting that if fate indeed dictates life, it would negate true free will. Various scenarios imply that while fate might seem to direct outcomes, there isn't evidence of it forcefully overriding daily decisions, leading to a conclusion that if fate exists, it might operate subtly through our own choices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question addresses a philosophical debate regarding the existence of fate and its influence on free will. The scenarios presented explore the concept of a predetermined destiny and whether such destiny infringes upon human free will. In essence, the question asks whether fate, as a predetermined series of events, is so powerful that it overrides free decisions made by individuals. The conclusion drawn from the scenarios is that if there is indeed a fate directing the course of events, then this fate would negate the presence of free will, as the trajectory of an individual's life would ultimately conform to whatever is fated, irrespective of personal choices. This implies that regardless of intentions or actions, fate would have the final say. However, the formulation of words like 'near constant subversion of our free will' implies a lack of physical evidence of such force, thereby arguing against the overpowering nature of fate in our daily life experiences.
In contrast, the argument acknowledges that if we often find our desires, aims, and values align with the outcomes that come to pass, it could suggest that fate acts through us rather than against us. If we arrive at a predestined outcome (location F at time T to experience event E) through apparently autonomous decisions, this could indicate a type of destiny that is invisibly woven into the fabric of our free will, casting doubt on the true freedom of our choices.