Free will is fun to think about but pointless to argue

I am sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic anywhere, and consider running the light in spite of the law.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  If I do I can assert this is my free will, but it may be just that my bladder is sending me signals to get home.  If I don't, I can assert too that this is my free will, but it may be that this time my bladder was silent.  We can always find causes for whatever we choose to do.  The assertion that free will is free cannot be decided that way as far as I can imagine.  

That doesn't mean I don't think we have free choices we can make, but mostly what we do is predetermined by our nature -- our genes, our past experiences, our karma, if you will.  The argument that the will must be free or else all is pointless is I think persuasive, but not logically.  It is like many other questions, such as solipsism, whether there is a reality, whether or not there really is causality or it is just an illusion.  We choose to act as though these things are either true or false because we don't like the consequences of the alternative answer -- that is, that all is meaningless.  But maybe all is meaningless anyway.

In short these are questions it is fun to think about, but pointless to argue.