Everything is predetermination and can be predicted. If we a had a computer and a model to simulate the future having all variables, with physics and chemistry we could predict everything that will happen, like a god.
Our lives are a complex game of billiard. Everything can be predicted if you have enough intelligence to make a perfect model and knows all the variables.
Everything you do and will do is predictable, only thing is that nobody is capable of predicting.

You thoughs and action are governate by the synapses in your brains and chemical reaction in you body. everything you fell and do can be analized, compared with other in the envyroment and the enviroment itself, and thus predictable to the minimum details.

But we homo sapiens sapiens cant even predict how the dice we just throw will fall when hits the casino table, imagine predicting an entire world of events that are casuality driven and interconnected.

You make the choice, but fate can determine that you were going to make that choice. If you stop to think about it, fate determined that you will stop to think about it.

Continue until lim -> infinite. Rinse. Repeat.

A combination of Fate and Choice IMO.

Coincidence (quantum determinism) best fits what I believe to be true, but the illusion of being in control of our actions is necessary to survival.

However coincidence is not "remarkable". It is extremely unremarkable.

Well I chose Choice, but I think a combo of Choice and coincidence, I don't believe in fate. I don't believe things are predetermined, everything is a choice by you or something else. I think with all the choices constantly being made, eventually weird things coincide with each other.

Choice

A) No time does not exist...only change in energy...time is how we perceive these things, its  a unit of measure. Your assumption that all outcomes are predetermined is based souly on the illusion of time and not on the change in energy itself. There is no means for you or I to predict that change in energy through anything other than assumption. 

B) You fail to provide any real evidence that choice exists, therefore if fate is tied to that series of choices and you can't provide valid evidence that choice exits then you fail to provide context for fate. 

C) I'm the ametur in this arguement? Last I checked you don't strip context from a persons arugument and only address the few words that frame your counter argument. That's like quoting a statement "God Exists" and saying "See I was right, God really does exist," without mentioning the rest of the sentence which might read something like ,"God Exists, only in the minds of people who believe such an entity to be real." It's dishonest to frame your arguments based on incomplete samples of someone else's words.

Your example is weak and based purely on a contrived anecdote. Neither person, has the foresight to know that either person A will drink Pepsi, or that person B knows that person A wants Pepsi. That's power or persuasion (point 3 demonstrates this) and or entertaining a lie in conversation for the purpose of conversation. The only thing that you determined is that Person B was not wrong about the drink prefence of person A. However, you did at least (kind of) demonstrate influence.

This is not to say that person B does not know person A and through process of observing the behavior of Person A they can come to undserstand Person A's bias in favor of Pepsi. Hell I know bartenders that know exactly what I want, because I have a strong bias for rum and coke. Point 3 reinforces this concept. Bob either knows person A and knows how to influence their bias, or is a really quick study of Person A and in either case is capable of effecting the same result.

1) So to end this debate, choice is still loosely defined according to your predetermined anecote which demonstrates your thoughts, but no observable evidence of the existence of choice.

2) You failed to, once again, demonstrate any observable evidence that fate exists. This goes into the real implications of point A) in which case you might want to use some actual science to discern the difference between the measurement of time and space.

3) All you've done is shown action and consquence and that people can and do influence the action and consquence of others. You can define that as choice, but choice carries the connotation that all responses to stimuli are indeed completely at the discreation of the indivdual and therefore can't be influenced or biased by the stimulation itself in any manner other than a predetermined action. Beacause of this you can't reobserve that same incident to test for different results and as a result you can't be the time keeper which can assert beyond any reasonable doubt that you know all possible outcomes nor can you prove the existence of one.

As a result the only people you will convince that you are right are either poorly educated or prepubescent.

A) I don't know where you are going with this. The original question asked to me was why fate and choice do not conflict. So that's the question I am answering.

B) Ofcourse choice exists. If I want to make a choice, I will and that is observable. You can say I'm forced to make choices without me knowing, fine, I don't want to discuss that because it is not necessary for the question asked to me.

C) I don't need to prove that someone knows the future. My intention is to answer the original question posed to me. And to do that I'm starting with the assumption this person Bob knows the future only to explain why having the knowledge of future events does not negate choice. You're derailing my explanation by asking me to prove that Bob knows the future. That's not necessary for what I'm trying to show.

So to start from scratch:

Bob knows the future. Choices are not controlled.

Bob knowing the future does not control choices. Why?

Because Bob's knowledge is only a mirror of the choices you will make. If you weren't going to make that choice, then Bob would know you weren't.

Think of a mirror. How does the other person on the mirror mimic your actions perfectly? How does he know to copy you without a seconds delay to see your action then copy you? Well it's a mirror not a person, but imagine if that was a real person instead of a reflection with the same affect/result. Does his copying you prevent you from doing what you want? Does his knowledge of what you're going to do next dictate what you will do next? It's the other way round. The choices you will make dictate the knowledge of Bob.

I'll leave you with a more advanced perspective:

You've already made all the choices you will ever choose to make from life to death. As your progress through your timeline, you will discover what those choices are.

A) You're original assumption is that time exists, so you made it factor in your argument. I'm not going to explain the principles that question your concept of time and why its innacurate. You can read that on your own.

B) The only thing observable is your action based on stimulus, there is no way to observe or examine that your  decision is a choice. However your reasoning will indicate what the stimulus was and why you reacted this way, that does not prove that choice exists; it only indicates that you responded to stimulus. Once again cause and effect is knowable and measurable, choice is a construct that may or may not accurately describe the cause and effect relationship. 

C) In order to prove the concept of fate, it counts on the existence of someone or something that already knows all the predetermined outcomes. It doesn't matter if Bob knows those outcomes,  or if I know them, or anyone in the current situation knows them or not, but something has to know those things in order for all decisions to be made before thier existence. If all decisions have been made before the existence of the universe then something knows those results. You can't prove that something exists and because you're making an unknowable assertion, the burden of proof is on you to prove its existence. You can't assert that all decisons are predetermined and only provide a contrived story as evidence to the claim. That's recursive logic.

The mirror is a bad analogy, it doesn't explain anything. Bob's existence can influence my decision, he may not influence my decision, and in some way, big or small, be effected by my decision, but he does not reflect that decision. He is simply a witness to it and the outcome, which he may or may not be able to predict through his own observation. 

Even at the end of my life when I've made all the decisions I will ever make, I can't look back at them and say that they are the only decisions I could have made, because those possiblities can't be examined. This conclusions is not an indication that choice exists and its not an indication that fate exists, its not an indication of a static or dynamic path, its an indication of something unknowable.

If time does not exist, then how do you differentiate between energy before change and that same energyafter change. What is the concept that distinguishes the two?