Van Inwagen's Argument Analysis

Both of the claims (1) and (2) present no reasons to dispute. Claim (3) follows from the reasoning of both claim (1) and (2). Claim (4) seems to be where the problem begins. This claim is an implication of determinism as defined by van Inwagen. Consequently, the argument now returns to the initial criticism of van Inwagen's definition of determinism. As a quick reminder van Inwagen's definition of determinism is that “[f]or every instant in time, there is a proposition that expresses that state of the world at that instant,” and second, “[i]f p and q are any propositions that express the state of the world at some instants, then the conjunction of p with the law of nature entails q.1 This conjunction in properties of propositions is also defined by van Inwagen with the statement that, “[d]eterminism is, intuitively, the thesis that, given the past and the laws of nature, there is only one possible future.”2 Claim (4) then requires us …show more content…
Perhaps if the straw man that van Inwagen has constructed could somehow be overcome, and a definition of determinism that was agreed upon by all parties of the arguments in free will, I could move forward and attempt once again to find value in the Consequence Argument. In conclusion, van Inwagen's argument depends upon his definition of determinism, and its reliance on this definition. Consequently, van Inwagen's argument provides no useful way to conclude that free will and determinism are incompatible. I have attempted to not only argue against van Inwagen's thesis, but have analyzed his claims and presented arguments that are contrary. Finally, I made an honest attempt to offer a possible counter-arguments against my claims but found the straw man that van Inwagen constructed to be a valiant warrior that summarily defeated my every effort at a