The study anakind posted is a direct argument against it, and if you generally believe in a universe that is ruled by physical laws & causality (and we have lot of evidence for this, and almost no counter-evidence), you cant believe in free will at the same time, because free will would mean something happens without a cause (you making a decision that was not determined by anything in this universe).
free will and a universe ruled by causality = direct contradiction.
so if you believe in free will you can also believe in pink cows appearing out of nowhere, it's almost on the same level
From his article:
" Philosophers question the assumptions underlying such interpretations. "Part of what's driving some of these conclusions is the thought that free will has to be spiritual or involve souls or something," says Al Mele, a philosopher at Florida State University in Tallahassee. If neuroscientists find unconscious neural activity that drives decision-making, the troublesome concept of mind as separate from body disappears, as does free will. This 'dualist' conception of free will is an easy target for neuroscientists to knock down, says Glannon. "Neatly dividing mind and brain makes it easier for neuroscientists to drive a wedge between them," he adds.
The trouble is, most current philosophers don't think about free will like that, says Mele. Many are materialists — believing that everything has a physical basis, and decisions and actions come from brain activity. So scientists are weighing in on a notion that philosophers consider irrelevant.
Nowadays, says Mele, the majority of philosophers are comfortable with the idea that people can make rational decisions in a deterministic universe. They debate the interplay between freedom and determinism — the theory that everything is predestined, either by fate or by physical laws — but Roskies says that results from neuroscience can't yet settle that debate. They may speak to the predictability of actions, but not to the issue of determinism.
Neuroscientists also sometimes have misconceptions about their own field, says Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In particular, scientists tend to see preparatory brain activity as proceeding stepwise, one bit at a time, to a final decision. He suggests that researchers should instead think of processes working in parallel, in a complex network with interactions happening continually. The time at which one becomes aware of a decision is thus not as important as some have thought. "
I think your assertions are false and you are framing them as scientific (universe ruled by causality), when you are not defining free will clearly. Free will doesn't necessitate that it cannot exist in the confines of the rules of the universe. You can decide whether to watch a movie or play video games instead. You really think that is deterministic?
Look, obviously there are plenty of smart people on both sides of this argument who have been fighting about it for years. Let's just agree to disagree.