Of course it doesn't, because it cannot say what preceded the big bang and therefore if it marked the actual beginning of the universe or merely a new birth in a long and perhaps infinite series of births. This is certainly more plausible than the idea that it spontaneously appeared from nothing 13.8 billion years ago (to borrow your birthdate).Thinking critical: in fact the BBT makes no claims what so ever to the origin of the Universe.
Well, scientists are rather inept at measuring infinity - they have to start with the only speck of it they can recognize.However an eternal Universe does not match any observations from expansion or data from the CMB and contradicts the first and second law of thermodynamics
There are short-term temporal purposes and essential or final purposes. The former are distinct, the latter are not. I thought you were referring to the latter: final purposes. Philosophers like de Chardin nd Aurobindo have suggested that the essential purpose of the Universe is for it to be an avenue for the conscious evolution of Life, or stated more poetically, the means by which the Universe becomes self aware.Alias: If you don't know what the purpose is, how do you identify purposeful action? How do you know progress is being made toward and aim, or that there is one?
But let's get to the bottom line here: why is it more logical to posit that the Universe and life randomly arose out of disorder than to posit that it is innately orderly and is simply realizing (making real) it's intrinsic nature?