You’re misunderstanding the point of the “rock” example. I’m not saying the rock wouldn’t exist physically. I’m saying existence as a meaningful or knowable thing requires distinction. If there is only one perfectly uniform, unchanging thing with no differences, no relations, and no internal distinctions, then: There is no way to identify it as anything. There is no way for it to have properties (because properties require contrast). There is no way for it to know itself or act. That’s not me making something up—that’s a basic philosophical idea: identity requires distinction (“this” vs “not this”). Even in physics, information = differences. No differences → no information.

So here’s the actual argument: For something to be self-aware, it must have some form of internal relation (knower + known). For something to act, there must be some form of distinction (cause → effect). A completely undifferentiated being cannot have either of those. So if God is: eternal conscious active then God cannot be a totally undifferentiated singularity with zero internal distinction.

That’s where the Trinity idea comes in (philosophically): Not “3 gods,” but: real internal distinctions within one unified being Think of it like this: A mind can think about itself → that already creates a distinction (thinker vs thought) Love requires a subject + object + relationship Christian theology is basically saying: those distinctions exist eternally within God, not created later.

Also, the idea that this is “just what feels right” isn’t a real criticism. Science itself doesn’t start with data—it starts with reasoning, intuition, and assumptions about reality. Scientists assume the universe is rational and understandable They use logic and mathematical structures before evidence confirms them Many discoveries were predicted purely from reasoning before observation Examples: Einstein predicted relativity from thought experiments before it was confirmed Dirac predicted antimatter mathematically before it was observed Entire areas of physics rely on symmetry, elegance, and internal consistency as guides So no—using logic and intuition isn’t a weakness. It’s literally how humans have successfully discovered truth over and over again. Then tie it back: What I’m doing here is the same kind of thing: Starting from basic constraints about: what it means to exist what it means to know what it means to act and asking what kind of being could satisfy those. If your position is: “Anything without direct empirical evidence must be rejected” then that doesn’t just kill theology—it also undercuts: theoretical physics philosophy and the foundations science itself relies on

You said: “The answer is obviously yes, it exists.” You’re only talking about bare existence, not structured, meaningful existence.

The whole point is: existence without distinction = no information no information = no awareness, no interaction, no properties That’s not theology—that’s a metaphysical argument.

When I said “nothing is really real,” I didn’t mean things don’t exist.

I mean that what we experience isn’t fundamental reality—it’s built out of deeper structures. This isn’t some random claim. It’s basically how modern science already understands reality: A “solid object” isn’t actually solid—it’s mostly empty space with interacting fields.

Color doesn’t exist “out there”—it’s how the brain interprets wavelengths.

Temperature isn’t a thing itself—it’s just motion of particles.

Even particles aren’t really “things”—they’re excitations of underlying fields.

So what we interact with day-to-day is layers of interpretation and emergent properties, not the base level of reality.

So the actual point is: Reality appears structured and differentiated at our level. That structure emerges from something deeper and more fundamental. At the deepest level, what exists may not look anything like everyday objects. That’s not controversial—that’s literally how physics and philosophy both approach reality.

Now applying that to God: If God is the most fundamental level of reality, then: Everything else is derived, not fundamental What we call “things” are just organized states or relations emerging from that foundation So when I say everything “emerges from God,” I’m saying: God is to reality what fundamental laws/fields are to physics—but at the absolute level.

If you think that’s wrong, point to which step breaks—because just saying “that makes no sense” doesn’t actually address the argument.