Are you seriously lecturing me on what science doesn't know?
We've already founded that there is a DIRECT relationship between the physical brain and consciousness. All the empirical evidence points towards it.
Like, don't fool yourself.
Just mentioning that "oh studies are being made" is a really a poor attempt to pretend that we can't conclusively say we don't have free will- and it's really really dishonest.
Yeah, we don't know everything about it and we are learning, but this topic of free will already has a consensus in neurology, neurosciences, and especially from physics.
We don't need to know how neurons interact with one another to create consciousness to know that we don't have free will. Why? Because we know what neurons are. We know that their interactions and properties are electrochemical/biochemical and we know that these mechanics operate on a very deterministic framework like the rest of the physical world.
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing... which, surprise surprise, is a fallacy that has become a banality among theists nowadays: Obscure the facts so that they don't reveal the absurdity of ones faith Typical, really.
And no, this discussion does not belong in philosophy. That's some sophomoric rubbish. You don't simply "think" your way into a solution, into understanding facts. You run tests and gather evidence. Again, just so you understand: you simply don't "think" about the validity of a factual statement. You get empirical evidence.
Furthermore, Do you know why anti-depressants work? Do you know why getting rammed by a car can completely can change someone's personality? Do you know why personal abilities change in just general? Do you know why parts of the brain reflect different parts of your personality? (Personality being synonymous with consciousness here)
I mean, these are basic examples which by no means are the entirety of the argument against free will, but it's things that I'd imagine you would understand (as getting into the more complicated things in biochemistry, physics (quantum and macro), etc... isn't convenient for the average person).
Additionally, we have every reason to assume a materialistic framework because nothing else in science in all human observation is derived from a spooky supernatural alternative.
Look around you. The type of people who beat around the bush about supernatural vs material are simply not taken seriously in scientific communities- and none of their work every makes in appearance in the discussions within those communities. Most importantly- none of that work makes effective results or contributes to society at all.
What does? What exclusively does? materialistic sciences.
You believe science doesn't have the answers, but it already does. So you have two options: 1) Be willfully ignorant because I've already explain this 2) Deny it because it's incompatible with your faith
Besides, your argument is more or less from ignorance. (Not calling you ignorant, just saying invoking the fallacy). You take your attitude and argument to qualified people working on the hard problem alongside physicists, chemists, etc... and you'll get laughed at. Just telling you now.