I'm going to drop the nice-guy face for a change and tell it how it is. Your argument is faulty because you're basically saying that "since I can't disprove it, then it may as well be true". The problem with that argument is that there is practically nothing that can be disproven by the sole virtue of the evidence saying "it isn't that". Usually the evidence suggests that that something is something else, so by that virtue it cannot be what you're proposing. For example, how do you disprove that the Earth is flat? By showing that it is something else - a rough sphere. Likewise, you cannot disprove that there is a dead bee orbiting around Venus at some particular radius. But that is not an argument to believe that there is?! Surely not?
What I'm saying is that you must believe something if there is reproducible, objective, and unbiased evidence supporting the idea. For example, if I release a rock from my hand, it is going to fall towards the ground, and every experiment that you conduct will arrive at the same conclusion - and that is why I believe that releasing a roughly similar object from my hand will result in it falling down.
You say that this isn't a scientific question. I beg your pardon. Science is our attempt to describe reality. If something is not a part of reality, it is poorly describable by science, but then it also cannot interact with reality and be a part of it. Consciousness cannot be separate from reality and affect it at the same time. If it affects it, then it is a part of the equation, and that could be described/measured.
I'm not one to make assumptions about people, but I know very well why you're arguing what you are. Emotions. It feels bad to not have free will. It feels weird to be a machine that is dependent on physics. Well, guess what. Feelings don't account for shit. It is what it is no matter if you like it or not, and whether it is or it is not depends on experiment.
On the other hand, can YOU prove that reality is deterministic? Of course not, because choosing to explain reality through determinism or free will is an ontological claim, and ontological assumptions are alway arbitrary, and of course, based in affection.
"TRUTH" only exists as a result of experience, even the scientific method, which you seem to think fondly of ( So do I, my whole work relies on it) is based on this notion. And experience can only exist subjectively. Therefore, all truth is perspectivist. Perspective and subjectivity are of course, highly embebed with affection and emotion. Do you not think emotions are part of reality? Do you deny your own feelings? I certainly don't. Then what would be the point of expeling emotions from our concept of truth? Why would we do that? In the name of what? Supposing we could abolish will and perspective from our understanding of reality, wouldn't that be castrating our intellect and letting go of one of the fundamental dimensions of being a human being?
You seem to misunderstand this issue because you are equating "reality" to "matter". I did said I believe conscious is immaterial, because I have never seen any material manifestation of my thoughts, even though I now for sure ny thoughts exist, otherwise I wouldn't be articulating this argument or wouldn't be capable of consciously represent this experience to myself, which is a prerequisite of my ability to react to it.
So I'm not saying that my consciousness exists beyond this reality. That would be absolutely absurd. Im just saying that reality isn't limited to matter. I know I can think. I know I can feel. I know I have a body that allows me to experience this dimensions of myself. I now my experience and my psyche DO exist as part of this reality, otherwise I would have to accept that other realities exist. Since I dont see any value in thinking about what cannot be reached, I can only conclude that there are parts of what I perceive that are beyond matter. This is not logically faulty, btw, unless you have a problem with induction, but then you would have to drop all your scientifisism because science uses induction much more often than deduction.
Whether reality is deterministic or not is, of course, not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. If you can show me a single peer reviewed scientific article that adresses the chemically definable nature of consciousness and will, I will shut up. But you can't, because there are not. Science IS, as you say, a method we use to understand reality, but it is a method we specifically use to understand the behaviour of nature. There are plenty of things we cannot explain using science, such as love, such as beauty, such as the meaning of life, such as the validity of a political ideology, such as the moral implications of killing someone, and so on. In the same way you cannot explain what math is using a mathematical equation, you cannot use science to test the hypothesis of whether science is the only way to explain reality. If you think you are doing a favor to science expanding the number of things it has the right to talk about, you are wrong. This kind of thinking has spawned the worst results of posmodern thought: The use of quantum mechanics to explain psychology, genetics applied ti aesthetics, and all kinds of charlatanery. If we value science, as I certainly do, we must have a clear idea of it's potential and limitations.
So with all that said, identification with one ontological system or another is always an arbitrary choice founded on affection, subjectivity, will, and most importantly, MORAL. You can choose to join the choir of neo positivists and represent the world as a cold clockwork hanging absurdly in space. I personally don't see any value in choosing this ficiton. Extreme empiricism is rather dangerous IMO, as most extremisms are, because it allows itself to be uses by the most toxic political projects.
I would rather represent myself a different fiction, and embrace the responsibility that I have in my life and in the construction of this world. This is a truth that so far has proved to be a much more useful and valuable moral foundation for my actions.