I have no problem accepting we don't have control over some of the thoughts we think but going from that to saying I don't have control over my actions, after I've had time to scrutinise internally debate those spontaneous thoughts, is a big jump.
Yes, but the way you scrutinise and parse thoughts and claims is entirely down to biology and environment. In other words, how you think is a result of prior causes.
The theory has a decent amount of logic which makes it compelling but I'm left wanting strong scientific evidence to back it up. The fact our brains can be seen apparently choosing our decisions before we consciously choose them does not lead me to immediately to believe that is sufficient evidence of no free will. I frankly don't trust our ability to interpret that data yet as our understanding of the brain is still rather lacking.
We have a pretty full understanding of the brain, actually. What we do not have a firm grasp on is consciousness. That aside, what evidence do you require? As I see it, you shouldn't need evidence. Logic gets you there unequivocally. It's a mystery to me that this point is apparently difficult to grasp. If every single thought and action is the result of prior causes (which it is), how can you have free will?
Also, why is that not strong evidence? It demonstrates that decisions are made before we are even consciously aware of making them. That utterly undermines free will.