This subject is far too complex and broad for me to offer a commensurate commentary here, but I can highly recommend this article on the intersection of philosophy and neuroscience on the matter of free will.
A number of experiments (famously, the Haynes experiment of 2008) have proposed to debunk our everyday experience of being able to freely choose our actions. The experimental conclusions were based on observed brain activity that indicated decisions are made before humans are consciously aware of it. There are a host of problems with claiming that such studies conclusively establish determinism as Truth, highlighted in the article below. Prominent among these is the vast discrepancy in decision-making scale: choosing between two buttons to press is not akin to deciding to marry someone or learn physics. A more immediate problem is that what is meant by "free will" depends largely on who you ask. At any rate, this article is a thought-provoking read.
Pressing a button or playing a game is far removed from making a cup of tea, running for president or committing a crime...Biological determinism doesn't hold up as a defence in law. Legal scholars aren't ready to ditch the principle of personal responsibility. ...And where philosophy is concerned, [Mele] says, scientists would do well to soften their stance. "It's not as though the task of neuroscientists who work on free will has to be to show there isn't any."