That makes no sense, Zeldar. You saying nothing existed until we (or other critters with an affiinity for sticking names on things) named them?
SHAKES, I think the term you need to explore is not “exist”, but rather “thing”. Reflexivity exists. So does forgetfulness. But each of these is an abstract quality, and you might not consider either of them to be a “thing”.
Why would God need to be made of anything? Reflexivity isn’t made of anything. Why would God need to be composed of either atoms or pure energy? Forgetfulness is composed of neither.
Sentient is a different bag of worms. Most theistic people conceptualize God as sentient. I myself think that is rather silly. (There’s an unspoken, unexamine assumption there that to be other than sentient is to be less than sentient. But most of what we mean when we say ‘sentient’ has to do with conscious processing of new input data over time: making new observations on Monday morning, mulling them over in between thinking of other things on Monday afternoon, reaching a decision or conclusion before Tuesday morning. Or perhaps developing a sense of self and a personal code of acceptable conduct over the course of a couple decades. Or reacting emotionally and cognitively in the split-second of watching an event occur. These are all things that are pertinent to an individual that experiences the passage of time. But if time itself is an aspect of this alleged “God” — if the passage of time is “God happening to everything else” —and if God is eternal —then it’s just as babytalkish to think of God processing information and considering feelings and reaching a conclusion on Tuesday the 19th of July in the Year of Our Terrestrial Lord 2005 in the Recent Epoch of the Cenozoic Era, or indeed to have any different thought or attitude or feelings than God had or will have at some other time, as to think of God as a bearded elderly male living above us in the sky on a throne surrounded by winged angels).
Switching from theology to ontology: SentientMeat may be a physicalist, but I am not, and I do not recommend that anyone be. The notion that everything is composed of particles (“things”) is contrary to what we know of physics. Materialism (a noun-centric view of reality) is essentially 18th Century thinking. The real action, so to speak, is interaction. Every “thing” is a dance of forces interacting.
Wherever interaction and relationship takes place, it has meaning, can manifest as a “thing”, an observable, a something that can be named.