So you think that everything interacts with everything else.

That would be Mach's Principle. It's a compelling view.

Things enjoy discrete identity within specific spatio-temporal contexts and scales. Radically change the context of evaluation and the parameters of thinghood also change. A thing, like a piston, becomes part of a process (reciprocating dynamism of energy-delivery) when the context shifts from building an engine to driving a car.

Is the question about the existence of God, or the nature of God?

If you ask, are there things which are Real which I am not able to imagine, the answer would have to be yes. Trivially, the history of science illustrates this (paradigm shifts). So if you base your 'negative affirmation' (God does not exist) on your own inability to conceptualize God, well, that is a personal limitation. I saw a video where Dan Dennet made exactly such an argument.

If, on the other hand, we were asking, what might be the nature of a God that really exists, that is a much more interesting discussion. I would say that atheism is...unnecessary.

I think characterizing aRealIdealist as "someone who is not at my level" qualifies as an ad hominem. It is entirely a personal attack. If an argument is sophomoric then the correct thing to do would be to analyse or refute it, not use it as a roundabout way of injecting an ad hominem comment.

Except what was requested was more of a 'position statement,' what philosophy means to me. So it didn't warrant refutation. I found it a perfectly cogent idea.

Characterizing someone's post as constituting "entry-level content" is indeed an ad-hominen attack. It was the first thing you said.

I think viewing philosophy as a kind of meta-science is one excellent perspective. More so because it incorporates some form of praxis in that experimentalism. For me, philosophy also entails a conscious (systematic) effort to rise above the limitations/biases of egocentric perception - a species of metaphysical doubt.