Fireball is into astrology? Thumbs up for that!
Anyway, to address your second point, free will has absolutely nothing to do with appearances. It has to do with choices. Also, sometimes what we choose is merely in the realm of possibility. I have no money to go out and buy McDonalds for breakfast, and the only thing that's available to east is old cereal. Looks like it's cereal for breakfast. Story of my life, by the way.
Nobody is born with a personality. Such a thing is shaped as the person grows up, due to whatever they're exposed to. My twin brother and I happened to be raised together doing everything the other does (in the same class, having to share a sandwich, having to share everything the other has), and today, we are almost exactly the same in personality. But we didn't have our current personality 15 years ago--things happened along the way that made us change. But that wasn't a choice.
Finally, you're just sticking conclusions onto facts that everybody knows. It's a non sequitur. Also, to have been programmed, you'd need a programmer. There is no such evidence of a being.
ADD: You're also using circular reasoning. You're using the statement that "personality that's been given to us" as the reasoning behind your evidence. You cannot use evidence whose support is the conclusion and the claim.
My personality was given to me? By who? Through what? And I stay as one personality my whole life?
ADD2: Free will not existing means life is meaningless? That's your personality coming through: you think you can jump into the heads of others just because you form a theory.
You have not demonstrated that free will is an illusion. You're using the conclusion (free will is an illusion) to support the claim (personality leads to free will), supported again by another claim (personality is given).
Your whole theory means nothing if it is grounded in fallacy. You'll need better reasoning than that.
ADD3: You're not addressing some extremely important factors in your explanations. First is the effect of upbringing--what effects families have on one's personality. Next is the effect of society. Finally is the effect of uncontrollable circumstances, such as getting into a car crash with a drunk driver. You're using an appeal to ignorance here.
ADD4: Don't quote my arguments out of context. On top of saying that nobody is born with a personality, I said that it changes as the person goes through their lives. The two statements go together but can easily be destroyed when separated, just as you did. Selecting one point and failing to address its follow-ups is a sign of weak argument.
ADD5: Personality is nowhere near genetic.
ADD6: Saying people are "meant" to run into each other due to some "chemical reaction of personality" is a whole other claim, and it needs its own set of evidence to back itself up. If your book is anything like what you're typing up, I suspect that your whole book is a ton of claims that support your first premise.
ADD7: "Whether you believe in God or not, somehow or another we've been given genes to look certain way and act certain way." Another claim. "Somehow or another" is NOT proof.
ADD8: Please address ADDs 1 and 7. Logical fallacies do not count as evidence, no matter how excited you may be about your discoveries.