Free will vs. Determinism

One of the most fundamental debates in the study of metaphysics pertains to the notion of“free will” and whether human beings exercise it. There are those philosophers who embracewhat is often referred to as nomological determinism, which maintains that all events in theuniverse occur by virtue of some necessity and are therefore inevitable––consequentlyproviding challenge to the idea that the past choices of seemingly rational agents likeourselves could have unfolded differently or that their future decisions are predetermined bytheir past circumstances governed by the natural conditions of the universe––whereas thereare other philosophers, however, who reject the notion of the world in which there is no roomfor free choice and argue that nomological determinism must be rejected in favor of ametaphysical theory that could be inclusive of human freedom without dispensing withnatural causality. Hence, please clearly explain: (1) what nomological determinism is; (2) thestrongest arguments that underlie this theory; and (3) the counterarguments that challenge theveracity of this theory and whether its criticisms necessitate its abandonment. ***(Pleasenote that this topic does not refer to political freedom. Don’t make the mistake of assertingthat free will exists because the Constitution of the United States guarantees it.The question is not about political freedom; it is about the metaphysical nature of freedom.) – Professor specified to only include Incompatbilism, Compatibilism, and how free will is an illusion arguments. MLA style.