Compatibilism is the hypothesis that determinism and free will are compatible, and that it is conceivable to accept the two ideas without being contradictory. Moreover, compatibilism is determined by previous events and the laws of nature. However, it says that people could be able to keep from performing the act. Thus, if determinism implies that people do not have this capability, we must renounce compatibilism. In this paper I try to contribute to Van Inwagen's central argument; which is about free will and determinism, to stand in contrast to compatibilism and the view that free will is compatible with determinism. I argue the reason why according to Van Inwagen compatibilism is an ambiguous position and whether or not we have free will.
First, compatibilism (determinism) does not claim that humans are free. It is the allegation that everything that happens is determined by prior conditions along with the natural laws. According to the textbook compatibilist concludes that it is appropriate to speak of a future as “open” if it is a future that would be brought about by choice. Even if it were a choice that was determined not to occur. (p.389). But, humans either have both free will and are able to use it or they do not have it at all. In the same way, they can use it as much as they want to or they do not and will never make their own elections or decisions. In addition, it is important to understand the difference between "being physically able to do" to "being able to choose". In other words, humans are not able to breath under water using only their bodies. Yet, that does not mean that humans are not free. However that is not the point in question here. Also, it is true that their actions have repercussions or results. Human are not restraint only because is against the law to rob a bank. They have free will to do it and make decisions but as I said there are repercussions for their actions.
Second, the truth of determinism rejects the existence of free will. Incompatibilism is a...