Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Neo-Scholastic]

I question the utility of logic as way of proving something exists without reference to evidence for that thing existing...If pure logic doesn't work for things that we know can be real, how can it work for things that can't be demonstrated to exist?

The objective evidence includes the fact there is something rather than nothing, that things can persist in their being despite change, the consistency of cause and effect relationships, etc. To account for this evidence there are logical demonstrations justifying the belief in God as a likely explanation, one that already conforms to subjective intuition, cross cultural encounters with the ineffable, and common apprehension of the sublime.

For the purpose of this thread, I say it takes a special effort to dismiss or explain away the evidence by showing that either the evidence isn't what we naturally suppose it to be or the logic of the demonstrations are flawed or that reason itself is suspect or our notions of causality are suspect. It is just like your rock example. The default position is that the rock exists and it takes lots of philosophical heavy lifting to bring its existence into question. Same for God, even if for the sake of argument I grant that God's existence does not have same level of immediacy as a rock.