[camgunz]

"Look man all reality is just uncountable numbers of subparticles phasing in and out of existence, what's not to understand?"

[measurablefunc]

Your response is a common enough fallacy to have a name: straw man.

[stickfigure]

I think the fallacy at hand is more along the lines of "no true scotsman".

You can define understanding to require such detail that nobody can claim it; you can define understanding to be so trivial that everyone can claim it.

"Why does the sun rise?" Is it enough to understand that the Earth revolves around the sun, or do you need to understand quantum gravity?