Richard Taylor defines determinism as "the theory that all events are made inevitable by their causes" and fatalism, as the idea that all the events that happen to us are inevitable (Taylor, 36). He states that the two theories essentially agree on the same principles and believes that a determinist should be fatalistic if he is consistent. Although I strongly support fatalism, I am skeptical of its application of truth to future claims and argue that until we are able to test the truth value of future claims, it is not rationally justified to hold fatalism to be true. .A fatalist talks about the future the same way we talk about the past. When we talk about past events, we say that they are no longer under our control because we simply cannot change them. Taylor suggests that the reason we cannot alter the past lies in our inability to influence the truth value of past statements. For example, it is true that I ate pizza for dinner last night and there is nothing I can do to make this statement false. Thus, there are a number of true statements about the past that we are powerless to change, and fatalism says the same is true of future statements. Taylor argues that if x is a true statement about the future, we can do nothing to make it false. If no one can make x false, then we are not free to change the fact x about the future. One might object to the premise that there are true statements about the future. If we consider this objection, then the whole argument falls apart, but according to the "law of the excluded middle" every statement is true or false, so it follows that there are some true statements about the future and the argument is valid. Taylor tells a story to...... middle of paper ......ze and we are unable to falsify it. In a sense, what Taylor calls “true statements” about the future can hardly be considered statements because we are unable to test their truth value using any logical or scientific method to find out whether they are true or possible. Maybe God can tell me what will happen in my future, but I cannot rationally come to the same conclusion as the fatalists. If future events in my life cannot be verified with logical tools, they cannot even be demonstrated by the law of the excluded middle. There is something strange about the way Taylor places all truths in the same category. I think it is fair to make a distinction between known truths and possible truths or to provide an argument as to why some future events can be assigned the same notion of truth as facts about our previous life events which have been empirically proven to be true.