Thanks for explaining.

I am still thinking about your assessment, that I offered an existential answer that takes life to be absurd or pointless.

Maybe I can try to clarify what I mean: Life has no intrinsic point to it, whether it's that flower growing in the wilderness or a human being. It seems because we humans have an extraordinary ability to receive thoughts and inspiration, combined with our physical abilities and that we build upon technology from past generations, that we have deluded ourselves into thinking we are more important than we are in the scheme of things: "I think, therefore I must be important and alive for a good reason."

As a highly respected philosopher (I respect you, anyway), how can it be that everything is not dependently originated? Everything is part of a process, isn't it? There are infinite examples of this, including that we exist because of our ancestors, or the earth exists due to some cosmic collision.

I don't see how evolutionary causality implies a natural purpose. I agree that everything has a role, but I wouldn't say that it is purposeful, even though the role can be performed with purpose.

Maybe I am reading you wrong. You seem to be saying that there is a creator, which is obvious to me. Something created all that exists. Maybe you agree with me that this something is not a god. I see creation as a process, and I don't see how a process has a purpose unless we anthropomorphize the purpose.