Hi Pradeep!

You are raising an interesting, polemic, and highly debated question.

As I see it, your question is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question. This does not mean that metaphysical questions are not important in themselves. Questions such as yours or other ones (e.g., Why live? Why be moral and just in an unjust world?) are really interesting, and it is likely that we all raise them, namely in particular circumstances, such as when we face, for example, a terminal disease.

As I see it, science whatever cannot give an answer to your question. Actually, we cannot prove scientifically whether the universe has/has not a purpose.  We can only make conjectures, not confirmations or refutations, about this issue.  

More to the point, I would say that answers to your question greatly depend on whether we are religious or not. If, for example, one is a Christian, it is likely that one answers affirmatively to your question by saying, for instance, that the universe makes part of an cosmic order dependent upon God's plans. Other religions will say the same, though invoking other type of divinity or divinities. 

I do not know whether you are acquainted with John Searle's  distinction between brut facts (e.g., mountains, rivers, and the like) and institutional facts (e.g., social rules, moral norms, and the like).  As I see it, it is easier to attribute purpose and a sense of agency to institutional facts than to brut facts, namely if you are not a religious person.  

Be that as it may, it seems more than natural that all of us, in our quest for meaning, feel a sense of awe and reverence before the universe. The universe seems lawful and hence it seems that it is not pure random and has, to an extent, purpose.

I used to say that we all should respect the universe, that is, to live in harmony with ourselves, the others, and the nature.

My answer to your question is far from being deep and comprehensive. These are, as it were, my first thoughts. I am eager to know of others' answers to your interesting and difficult-to-answer question.

 Best regards

Dear Orlando.

You can't  say it is metaphysical totally.Science does aid means, logic or  even physics could be useful in this regard,especially for intellectual ones.We come to God or religiosity ,definitely in extreme situations and  when one is focussing on the truth.Other religions could be eliminated in this regard, if you accept the BigBang theory and it is semitic. Now, even India is endorsing Big Bang theory.You can accept the institutional facts and brut facts once you are in consonance with the above.As for me the greatest hurdle was Trinity. I would like you to subsribe to Heisenberg's view. Let me state it for you. The first gulp from the bottle of natural sciences will make you an atheist. But God is waiting for you at the bottom of the glass.Secondly, you can heed Feynman's view. Scientifically prone and brilliant minds around the end of their secondary education, seem to develop or disinherit the religion of their birth. After drowning in total science,maybe around 40, it becomes inevitable to dismiss for them the possiblity of  a Designer  God, although  few seem to succumb to religiosity of their  birth and even so there is  nothing wrong with it, as religion deals with ethics which are meta physical  in nature.Now I am  an Armenian and one Armenian = 2 Jews. 1 Jew = 4 Englishmen .  Therefore 1 Armenian  = 8  Englishmen.Please read Nikoz Kazanthzakis book, THE FRATRICIDES for proof of this claim.According to the Bible, a true christian will have to die atleast seven times in your life. You want to hear those my tragic stories of  my  life. Truth is crowned with thorns.You may note, the trinity problem ,confounded one of the most brilliant minds who has influenced our times , namely George Boole. Albeit, religious and one  of the greatest logicians of our time, he wanted to remove trinity from the Bible.His defense,only  an  unique Omnipotent Benevolent , God can exist by virtue of which absolute evil cannot exist.Now I have raised the issue of Ramanujam, who was aided  by a mysterious force to spell out 4000 complex mathematical equations without proofs, this formally uneducated person. Does scientists and atheists acknowledge miracle. Definitely no and only now we have we found proofs of those equations by contemporary mathematicians.The key point to be noted is I have developed an equation and because of its mysterious nature, named it miracle equation.The  equation is proof of trinity in nature. i have actually earlier  had considered trinity illogical and unbelievable and have passed through the state of mind  as George Boole.Dictatorship of relativism has ended  as a consequence of this. The moment you are distancing the christian line, you are actually  taking  the pantheistic  route. Now I had  also gone passed through that phase and been  a pure vegetarian for 2 years. So these are not polemic debates and one has freewill and innerconscience, prompting decision to be taken. I do believe the path of excess leads to the tower of wisdom.

Dear Pradeep,

Than you very muck message for your prompt reply to my answer to your question and the information provided. I can follow you when you say that I can't say that your question is not totally metaphysical. Note, however, that when you say that your question is not totally metaphysical you are implicitly accepting that it is partly metaphysical. This stance, nonetheless, is difficult to substantiate. To what extent is/is not your question metaphysical?

As far I see it, for a statement to be a scientific, not a metaphysical, claim or doubt it is has, say, to establish the conditions under which it would be falsifiable. I wonder whether the question "Does the Universe have a purpose?" can ever be confirmed or disconfirmed or establish the conditions under which it would be false. As this seems to be the case, then your question seems difficult to be confirmed or disconfirmed.

And what do you mean by purpose when asking whether the universe has a purpose? Note that when a concept, purpose in this case, is not clearly defined, any experiment or theoretical elaboration on it risks saying nothing significant at all. 

Of course, there are several conceptions of science. For example, K. Popper, D. Kuhn, J. Laudan, and I. Lakatos, just to mention only four examples, do not have the same idea about what a scientific theory is. I think, however, that explicitly (e.g., Popper) or implicitly (Lakatos), all accept, say, the falsification principle.   

I partly follow you when you say that religion deals with ethics. I say partly, because ethics can be addressed from a secular point of view. Kohlberg's theory, for example, is a deep theory of justice and morality and has nothing to do with religiosity. In this vein, I would say that no one is obliged to profess or not to profess any religion, but all of us are morally obliged to be just, that this, not to treat others unfairly (ethic of justice), and not to turn away from someone in need (ethic of care).

I am not sure if I add something new to my previous answer ,

Best regards.

Firstly please excuse me,  for we are dealing  with  noetic and beyond realm matters. Thanx also that you appreciated that initial heavy bombardment. Issues need  not be clearly bifurcated between metaphysics and scientific in an absolute manner. Logic is  a component of both and those  areas are commonality.For instance, when somebody opines , he loves another, that does not rule out his imperfect concealing negligible or partial hate, he may be having for the other.  Love does not rule out the opposite and words do have limitations and  are constrained.The   apparently unfathomable  conundrum Does the Universe  have  a purpose, is fundamentally reducible to Does Life have  a meaning  and for  even the average mind this latter  might be  obvious.But if you take the Hawking angle, namely it is the ultimate triumph of reason. Also, High IQed ones might only accept switchover of the question.  Science or scientifictheory could have different levels of analysis and interpretations like Shakespeares Macbeth. As you mentioned there could be few multiple levels of acceptability in the same order.Here the most disingenuous mind could have the ultimate final correct, singular conclusion. I do think this is achievable. For instance, consider the case of Betrand Russell. In his book Why I am not  a Christian. He even advocated there is no historical proof that christ ever existed.He even claimed Socrates and Buddha are greater people than Christ. Such a great man as Russell ,would make this garguantum of misapprehension.But  with the sort of data we have today ,even he would have retracted from this view. But when great men of repute, make mistakes,like yourselves, this would be catastrophic for billions of masses.. They definitely  are role models and society could be corrupted immensely in the  future Lastly, you are tackling the issue Agnostic view. One does not need religion to understand ethics.See  we live in  a world, where we  fall  ,before even pride conquers our heart. Science will never be able to remove suffering and this would lead to pursue the truth means God and religion . I  do remember the day I spoke Why I am  a chrstian . The only two reasons, I could verify the veracity of The Solomon Proverbs with the adversial situation,i was  facing then . Secondly, the dissidence that is pervading the world. When Pink Floyd split,even divorces becoming common,Great spirits are violently opposed by mediocrities in a mild manner, the mavericks being harassed.The sort of enmity that might thrive in a End Times scenario nations fighting against nations, between brothers ,even between  father and son property disputes in India.Science and logic are inadequate in this regard. The sort of dissidence I have encountered in life, is everyone whomever I come to contact and friendly, once they understand my advanced  scientific egotism and novelty seeking nature are virtually converted  as rivals and enemies as in a Darwinian nightmare.Even CHRISTIAN GOD was terribly opposed by angels who became devils in the process of disregarding him ,they were having  jealous and hatred of God,   as he was enjoying unparelled supreme importance. This was the reason for their dissidence and struck a chord with my personal existence.This second point was appreciated by the Hindu member in the audience. Two decades back, these were two minimal reasons, I remained christian. Faith does evolve,if you seek with sincerity. Faith I do have now is beyond noetic realm.

For more info --  excerpts from the book " Comprehensive Revision Of Special Theory Of Relativity " Amazon publication.

Everything is provable. Reality has structure...and is not a random one, even randomness is a necessary condition for it to create.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/jared-diamond-on-his-new-book-upheaval.html?fbclid=IwAR2V7qHue4g_xxeMUvHS4ETo1jBJVbJzq38IX-zKT4yHGw38v3mFChHNERM