Ah ... the Great Differentiator makes his debut in our discussions.
(Just kidding, BB. My real answer is: I don't know. Nobody does.)
And yet logic lets us see the problem involved with this "unknowable." An infinite chain of (accidental) causes produces nothing but a piling up of accidents; therefore, in order for anything to exist -- to be the way it is and not some other way -- there must be a first cause. And if there is a first cause, it seems clear that it is acting towards a final cause, a goal or a purpose. Otherwise, why bother to do anything at all?
Of course, it can be said that this is an example of anthropocentric reasoning. Which raises another question: Is logic "anthropocentric?" Does it depend on the human mind, or rather, is it an independent something that the human mind just "naturally" resonates to? If the latter, and if everything that we see in nature is a purely "natural" product of nature's "laws," what in nature generates these laws, or the principles of logic?