Are there any Level 1's here?

[Esquilax]

Esquilax: To be honest I don't understand what the problem is with the idea of dependency. We see it everywhere: Things bump into each other and react with each other and change the position, shape, color, structure, etc. of other things all the time. This is what I mean by dependency.

The issue is that you're taking a rather simple observation- two objects of physical matter interact in some way upon contact, in accordance with physical laws- and attaching a metaphysical significance to it that you haven't demonstrated, nor is it immediately obvious. Having established this by nothing more than fiat assertion, you proceed to spin off into a larger explanation, underpinned by a concept you haven't yet shown to be anything more than an assumption on your part.

It's something we see quite a bit in apologetics, really: I can see the eagerness to do so, but if you can't demonstrate first that this dependency requires anything more than physics to function, then your house of cards has no first floor, so to speak.