For Mr. Erick Garza

a response to a poignant question by the aforementioned.

Mr. Garza,
The questions you ask do strike very close to home.  I have asked them myself- and continue to ask them-, as do the vast majority of humans, but rather, it is your commitment to these questions which truly is the cause for any sort special interest. 
In particular, my search has lead me to two relevant perspectives.
Firstly, the operative word in each of the questions is why.  In fact, every other word is inserted in a vain and human attempt to tame the nature of such speculations to the confines of our language.  The language limits our pursuit, however, and I strongly suggest that you isolate and ultimately remove all semblance of translation as it corrupts the thought.  For our purpose we shall assume that we both have the same thought which we are translating into the word why. 
This being said, there is no possible way to satisfactorily answer the question.  A simple mock dialogue between Thrasymachus(T) and Socrates(S) will illustrate my point more clearly.  (A reference to Plato's Republic.)
S: Why?
T: Why what?
S: Why everything?  Why nothing?  Let us pick any possible why question and follow it until its very end.  The answer will be just as attainable as the abbreviated form: Why?  Why does a mother love her child?
T: It is a mother's nature to love her child.
S: And why is it her nature to love her child?
T: Either because the gods have made it so or because of her brain chemistry which is in her physical nature.
S: And why did the gods make mothers to love their children? (I'm not even going to try my hand at brain chemistry.)
T: Because children need to be loved.
etc...
You get the point.
Secondly, the nature of our "spiritual" existence is one of experience rather than accomplishment.  (I use the medieval theological system here, which nicely mirrors many Eastern philosophies, that states the human condition is divided into the physical, the mental or academic, and the spiritual or philosophical.)  Though we judge the physical world by what it may become, and the mental world by what it is, we naturally judge the spiritual world by what is in relation to what it was.  Allow me to elaborate.
A 2012 Triumph Speed Triple has the ability to produce 133bhp.  It will travel at speeds up to 209 miles per hour.  No one cares, or thinks of, or mentions, that is was a hunk of metal ore a year ago.  Or that it was later smelted and molded into pieces specific for the bike.  A long-term investor might see it as a bit of future rusted metal.
In Charleston, South Carolina (US), the crime rate was on the rise.  An honest, diligent, and selfless man joined the police force.  Over the course of two decades he personally contributed to the clean and relatively safe Charleston that exists today.  He was eventually promoted to the chief of police.  Years later, he was found wandering in a local park, stricken with Alzheimer's disease and wholly unable to remember who he was or what he was doing.  Naturally, he was looked after in a nursing home until he died.  No one sought his opinion or help on the case.  No one cared what he was (academically speaking) because he was that no longer.  That moment ended.
Many alcoholics have reformed their ways and have been sober for years after they performed one of the most difficult 180s imaginable.  These people are generally considered to be great in the spiritual sense.  The were s**t.  Now they are above average. 
In short, when it comes to matters of philosophy, there are certain questions which are infinitely more important than the answers to them.  This is the case here.

Anyway, that's my long-winded response.  Let me know what your thoughts are.