I'm sorry to be pedantic; to clarify, I think you mean that there is no *objective* point to anything, but there is a *subjective* point; therefore, there is a point to our existence (which refutes Nihilism).

Aside: This is why definitions are important. It's easier to say there is no point to anything when what is meant is everyone determines the point individually because the latter sounds self-ish (which it is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong!).

Existentialism argues that one's existence precedes essence, making the individual the author of meaning. To refute existentialism, one has to make the case that essence precedes existence (i.e., humans are made in the image and likeness of God).

One argument is, can we say something is objectively wrong, and therefore, its existence is contrary to an essence that preceded it? An example would be someone like Hitler or an action like rape. Some existentialists will bite the bullet and say we can't objectively say those things are bad. Others will rely on some collective utility to say those things are bad (which, in my opinion, at a minimum, undermines the theory if not outright refutes it).

The theist would then say that since we can say things are objectively good or bad, this leads to nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs ‘s statement, “You're meant for greater things.” The debate then continues about what is good and bad and what those greater things are.

I'm not trying to bait you into a debate you don't want to have. I'm just trying to briefly outline the classical arguments to show why I think the OP is right.