If we are the result of pure evolution (i.e. there has never been a single creation event of any kind), then the human species has no ultimate goal and: "We do not exist for any reason" is a valid answer to my leading question.  But this is essentially existentialism and my interest lies in what other answers are possible.

The nature of the Creator's existence:

Suppose there is a creator that is not all powerful and not all knowledgeable.  If so, a question that can be asked is "where did this creator (with it's obvious limits) come from?"  And like us, either this creator evolved, or some other creator must have created this intermediate.  And if the creator's creator has limits then they also must have evolved, or another must have created them.... and so on, until we encounter "the Creator with no limits".

If the top most creator evolved and does not grow, or grows slower then we do, then we (the species) have the potential to eventually surpass this creator.  I contend that in a search for purpose, this situation is the same as "we evolved".  Alternatively, if our creator evolved and grows faster or at the same rate as we do, then either our creator has made up our purpose based on limited knowledge of the universe (I.e. we are an "experiment" with no purpose beyond the reason for the experiment), or our creator has left us to continue to evolve on our own (and again we have no specific reason for our existence).

Thus I conclude that all musings toward the solution of "why do we exist?" must fall within these two distinct solutions: (1) we exist for no profound purpose, or (2) our purpose has been defined by a limitless Creator (which I will denote in future text as the "Creator" with a capital C).

Rational for consciousness:

I also claim that only a conscious creator is of interest.  If the creator were unconscious, our consciousness would then be unintentional, we would have no purpose, and again we are reduced to existential thought. 

Rational for purpose:

Three arrangements exist concerning the purpose of our universe: multiple purposes, one purpose, or no purpose.  No purpose suggests a haphazard accidental creation not unlike evolution, and is thus existential.

Multiple distinct purposes for the universe (that do not collapse to a single purpose) imply multiple states at the conclusion of the universe with energy and knowledge split across multiple domains with well defined boundaries.  (I assume the conclusion of the universe involves a "reverse bang" where all mater and energy and thus all knowledge and consciousness are drawn back together and assimilated in some way.)  For multiple purposes to exist here, boundaries would be needed to keep the information, energy, and possibly our perception and imagination separate.  No one domain would or could be all knowledgeable.  It is conceivable if we knew almost everything, and all purposes were, through the final proximity, revealed to us, that we would integrate any final knowledge and ultimately form a joint purpose, dissolving these remaining boundaries.  I conclude then that multiple distinct purposes can never be a final state where all knowledge is known to all conscious beings.

So finally, if my hypothesis above is sound, the Creator of our universe (should one exist) must be perfect and have a single ultimate purpose for us.  Else, there is no creator of significance to our purpose.

Implications (from) concept 1:

Allow me to define the following: 

With these definitions, if there is a perfect conscious Creator who created at least the first conscious beings, then all of us can be defined as progeny of The Creator. 

This concept defines free will.

Concept 2 is based on the observance that there is no cosmic force that uniformly intervenes in the life of any living being.  This fact has often been used as argument that a creator, or God, must not exist.  I contend however that lack of intervention will also be the observed effect from within a perfect system.  Thus, we actually have additional support for Concept 1: haphazard or random intervention would imply an imperfect world that constantly needs "adjusting", an imperfect creator that does not know all things, and for us a temporary and "experimental" purpose which we can ultimately transcend.  Note that the two solutions now become (1) The Creator is perfect and can create nothing less than a perfect world, or (2) there is no creator of profound significance.

It makes sense that we are like our parents (or those who raised us) because we learned a lot from them. Our parents however do not (usually) learn from us. We rarely say "dad is just like me", but often say "I am like my dad".  Why then do we ascribe so many human traits to our deities?  I believe it is because most of us have never experienced our deities directly.  And thus, with a lack of experience and understanding of something which must be so profoundly different, we default to defining our gods in terms that which we already understand: the human examples around us.

Breaking these associations which initially shape our spiritual understanding is to me a key exercise along our spiritual paths.

Creation of boundaries is an important mechanism for human growth.  Babies are protected because they cannot face the events of the world until they are big enough, strong enough, aware enough, intelligent enough.  And both children and adults faced with overwhelming circumstances must create distance or some other boundary to give them first safety, then a place to recover, and finally a way to re-discover their own strength.  Only then can they return, face the circumstances again, and find the strength to stand up for themselves refusing to fall victim to the situation.  If the circumstance occurs before one is ready to discover their strength, the process of reconstruction can sometimes take decades to complete.

In academia, artificial boundaries are erected to reduce complex problems into manageable pieces.  Sets of "equations" applied at carefully isolated stages of a process can provide a description of a dynamic process even though the equations are essentially static.  Here lines are being drawn for understanding and simplification.

A perfect creator, of course, has no need for any of this.

Humans, with our ability to imagine, can and often do see problems which don't really exist and create boundaries which are really not needed.  Free will is a double edged sword - it lets us imagine beyond our current limits, but it also lets us imagine limits which are not there.  Boundaries can be a wall behind which to hide, a device used to discriminate and demoralize, or a tool used for growth.

Concept 1 declares that if there is a God, then there is a purpose for our existence.  Here I argue that our universe would not be perfect unless there is also a perfect motivation that leads us to our purpose.  Absence of purpose and absence of motivation have the identical effect on the inhabitants of a closed system.  Thus, if there is a perfect Creator with a perfect purpose, we will be attracted to that purpose in a way that does not inhibit the free will of concept 2.

Continuing to build on concept 1, if there is a being that exists through all time and space, and has no physical boundaries, this being also could not have any communication challenges.  Issues such as distance and time lag, recipient unavailability, and language or semantic misunderstandings could not be hindrances to a perfect communicator that is everywhere and everywhen. 

Free will however complicates this slightly with the need for us (the recipients) to be able to ignore and misinterpret divine messages.  We must be free to believe that there is no God and that all our thoughts are random or based solely on our own knowledge, or that if there is a God they may not talk to us, or that our thoughts can deceive us, or that we are being commanded, or that the messages are completely absurd, or anything else.

Several "systems" for receiving communication that fit all of the above requirements (any time, any place, any level of awareness) presently exist, but these are often not associated with a divine source.  No matter how the communication takes place I argue that it must operate in spite of all of the following typical human conditions:

• Language - a perfect creator would not use language at all but would speak directly via "ideas".
• Education - a perfect creator would not require the recipient to have a minimum level of education.  Even though a being may not understand an idea with perfect clarity, the idea would be received by the recipient in a form useful to the recipient.
• Consciousness - a perfect creator would be able to present an idea to us even when we are groggy, dreaming, or in various states of pseudo-consciousness.  Again, our ability to interpret and understand the idea would likely be a function many things.

Discussion about what these systems actually are and how they work ensues via the links at the bottom of this page.)