Originally Posted by Nicato
I voted no, tentatively, because there is yet no accounting for the excessive (if you believe that life has a purpose) or abundant (if you believe that it does not) amount of stuff. I mean, what is the purpose of the moon? The tide? Okay, but Mars has no water and it has two moons. Certainly one can argue that every entity in the universe has at least a minute effect on our tidal cycle, but to suggest that that is the only reason why all those entities exist is at best absurd and at worst arrogant.
We're a cosmic joke, so what. Slinkies were an accident (as was my conception) and the world is all the better for it.
You seem to adhere to a mindset that if something can't be observed or quantified, it's irrelevant. But "purpose" is by definition a qualitative concept, so you defeat the "purpose" of your own question with circular reasoning. Asking if life has a purpose requires first accepting that purpose is a possibility, which means accepting that qualitative aspects of our existance are relevant.
p.s. Not to mention that "relevance" is also a qualitative concept.