Why do we need a purpose to encompass ours in order that ours should be valid? My love, emotions, commitments and convictions aren't artificial because they are confined to me. In fact, I might argue that they are more valid than any guided by involuntary instruction, inheritance, or reward.
Let's think about this: If there is a God worthy of the Name, clearly that God must know the creature and the creature's mindset. Those of us who do good would do so regardless of any "guidance". (Do you really think we need biblical productions to understand that for example "thou shall not steal?") And as it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, regardless of the book, or messenger, or people or era involved, guidance does not help those who in fact do kill, steal, and cheat. So, that is not what 'Guidance' is about.
I'll concede this to be a worthy interpretation, but one too rare. :) And don't get me wrong; although I might find basis for that argument, I wouldn't make it. -That's why I didn't find Dawkin's The God Delusion to be personally interesting. I will strongly defend a right to equal footing for the uninformed, but no more. I also use 'uninformed' in a non-cynical way. I find myself to be insufficiently informed. That is my state, and the footing of my purpose.
That is the whole point, mk. You speak of "I". A fitting self-expression for a Fermion. (Have you noticed not even two Fermions can occupy the same spot? ;) The Bosonic ones say "there is no I -- there is only One". The entire Aseembly of Light (Photons) can occupy the same point without any of these stepping on "another's" toes ... (Who Sees when you see? Who feels when you feel? "My thoughts, my feelings". Are you so very sure?)