The existence of free will, at a level that it will make someone morally responsible for his actions, it is less likely than its non existence.
It is generally accepted that computers and animals cannot be regarded as morally responsible for their actions.
Decisions made by man are divided into impulsive ones, in which someone reacts like animals with the only difference that he discusses and rationalises them afterwards , and computational ones, in which he estimates roughly the odds of achieving a goal, just like a computer would do.
There have been experiments which show that the decisions in the brain have been taken before the subject is conscious of them.
Unconscious actions cannot be regarded as free.
If there were free will, we would have indications of some unexplained behavior of neurons and brain.
Neuroscientists having quite a good understanding of the brain conclude that it is a mechanical organ and nothing more.
Free will exists and our feeling of freedom is a good argument for its existence.
What makes us responsible for our actions is not the decision-making method, but our objectives, which are freely chosen.
The decisions that the participants are asked to make in these experiments are very simple and uninteresting so they
are not even prospective as actions caused by free will anyway.
Experiments made in individual cells or during generic brain scans are inadequate to disprove something as complex as free will.
If scientists had really good knowledge of the brain, they would have decided upon similar complex phenomena such as consciousness whose existence is certain
but nevertheless they are unable to answer the 'hard problem' of consciousness.
There are no serious grounds to believe in free will, as the only argument in favor of this is the sense of freedom we experience.
In the past we have seen that when people tend to think intuitively and wihout sufficient basis, they can maintain false beliefs for thousands of years . For example the belief that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth.
There is no good reason to believe that the value system of anyone is freely chosen , since nobody seems to escape
the causality of the world and specifically his environment and genes.
Quantum mechanics proved the indeterministic nature of the universe.
Even if we accept the non-determinism of the universe as it is advanced by quantum mechanics, this assumption only concerns the existence of randomness or probabilities
which are not sufficient to produce a free will capable of moral responsibility.
Free will is obviously an emergent property resulting from a combination of causality and randomness. Otherwise, by definition, it could not escape the logical dichotomy that everything is either random or predefined.
As Jaegwon Kim argues, emergence leads us either to dualism, which is scientifically unacceptable or at least unnecessary under Occam's Razor if we accept top to bottom causality, or to eliminative materialism in which consciousness is an epiphenomenon and free will an illusion if we do not accept it.