I would argue both free will and determinism are wrong.

As these mobile organisms, we have a sequential process of perception and a narrative based culture, so we naturally assume time to be the point of the present moving past to future. Even physicists codify it as measures of duration.

The reality is that change turns future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. Duration is the present, as events rise and fall, like so many waves.

There is no literal dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, in order to inform and drive it, aka causality and conservation of energy.

As such, time is an effect, like temperature, pressure, color, etc. Think frequencies and amplitudes.

The notion of determinism is based on the narrative flow of time, that all events are fundamentally determined by what came before, yet if there is only this physical presence, those future computations, which do the determining, have not occurred and cannot be predicted, as there is no way to even begin to consider all the various input into any event, before it happens and this computation occurs. If the input cannot be known, neither can the output.

As Alan Watts put it, “The wake doesn’t steer the boat, the boat creates the wake.”

Free will is an oxymoron, as a will free of cause, would be equally free of effect and the meaning of will is to affect. We are part of nature’s process of selection.

As for God, logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. More the light shining through the film, than the images on it.

That philosophy hasn’t questioned this conflating the ideal with the absolute and all the logical consequences still shadowing civilization, other than dismissing the anthropomorphic father figure lawgiver, shows we are still in a fairly primitive stage of intellectual evolution.