The free will vs determinism debate has been raging for thousands of years and neither philosophers nor scientists have come to a consensus on it. Presenting your view as if it were the scientific consensus is a little misleading as well as being a fallacious appeal to authority.

If you want to get into an honest debate about free will using science, you will have to get into a discussion on quantum mechanics, wave structures, chaos theory, and neuroscience that few people here would have an interest in getting into. If you don't get into that discussion, then you aren't getting into anything useful because without a consensus in the scientific community, the only way you are going to use science as an argument is by arguing the science yourself and hoping others with an opposing view are less well versed.

The bottom line is that you have staked a position on a hotly debated problem for which no solution has been reached after thousands of years of searching. That's fine, there are proponents on both side who have decided to stake their position. Unfortunately, you have also decided to come to conclusions about unrelated matters that hinge on your position being correct. If the countless experts who hold a view different from your own are correct and your view is wrong, there go all the other views that hinged on it. Don't you think it would be safer to come to a conclusion on hell that does not rely on the determinism vs free will debate being settled in a specific way?