The same way that free will could exist in the past, even if you have memories now.
We don't have free will with regard to actions that have already happened. Once the decision is made, free will no longer applies to it.
If you can have free will in the present, you can have had it in the past and you could have it in the future. To say that "we don't have free will with regard to actions that have already happened" means no more than saying that the past is irrevocable. Otherwise, it's similar to saying that, being dead, one never lived. You could say that a dead person has no free will, but if you say "person" here, you are confused. A corpse is not a person. A person is a constantly changing being. Consciousness ceases to exist when it stops changing (pauses/stops). That doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all or never existed. It means its definition is about a current manifestation. There was a consciousness. There was a choice. (Or maybe both are illusions; it doesn't matter.)
Anywho, a conclusion that free will is illusory does not seem to follow from the logic presented. I'm not sure I disagree overall, but that is besides the point. In any case, regarding religion and specifically Christianity, there are logical/Biblical positions in both camps, and both sides generally agree that, to a Christian, it doesn't matter which is true, as it doesn't change anything. Perhaps it is the case that an illusion of free will is the same as free will to a mind that cannot know the future. Also, be sure to watch out for defense mechanisms, as they complicate (or make impossible) objective appraisal of the matter.
Lemme guess, it's heavily tied to/explained by evolutionary pressures, and is really based on sex?
I think he is referring to basic physics and how everything (until you get down to quantum mechanics, which seems to be better described statistically) boils down to some manner of causality. I'd actually be interested in the neuropsychological research, if the poster could present it or link it. I'm thinking of making the area my cognate and gearing my dissertation towards it, so any interesting (and somewhat current) research would be nice.
God commands plants to fruit, and instead of becoming fruit, the plants (trees specifically) BEAR fruit, which represents a choice they made on the interpretation of Gods will
Actually, that's a really interesting observation. Heck, even on a simplified level (as a literary device), it's an interesting concept. I wish I'd known that verse when I wrote an exegesis on John 15:16. Would've been the balls.