[The Universal Call]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

If it were possible for me to never stop thinking, then I would have had a thought which accurately reflected reality.

I believe the only way to experience or comprehend (imagine?) infinity is to be it (your metaphor works). Yeah, I am confident that a human can't do it.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The universe exists, so it had to exist? Rather circular argument isn't it?

Of course, but there's only four sides of the coin mate (wait, four? lol). If not "The universe exists so it had to exist" then either "The universe doesn't exist so it had to exist" or "The universe exists so it didn't have to exist" or simply "The universe doesn't exist so it didn't have to exist".
1st side; Makes sense to me.
2nd side; Let's just skip that one.
3rd side; I'm confused. But at least we know the universe does exist, why it still was triggered if it didn't have to, yeah, that's quite random, just as the "random"-theory itself.
4th side; But obviously the universe does exist so this side has to be wrong, or am I seeing it wrong here?

Please notice any flaws in this way of looking at it. But from what I can see here then the 1st side makes the most sense, even if it is a circular argument. Therefore, in the beginning of time the Big Bang simply was initiated without a cause- the universe just had to be.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ironically that page's word play makes use of flaw which it points out in the issue with the standard definition of nothing. It says that any attempt to apply a label to true nothingness means that we have applied the label to something, and something cannot be nothing. But that logic is only possible if you don't consider the purpose of abstract concepts. Our use of language allows us to apply any word to any thing (or lack of thing) without affecting the thing itself. In other words (heh), words do not affect reality. I can call this keyboard a spanner, and if any time I want to refer to this thing I type on, I use the word 'spanner', that doesn't change the thing I'm typing on. I won't be able to suddenly start using it to undo bolts on my car.

In short, a definition is irrelevant to something's existence or non-existence, so it doesn't follow from an unclear definition, or an inability to come up with a satisfactory definition, that there is no alternative to existence.

Sadly, I see what you are getting at. I didn't consider this. However, I still want to run by the notion that this point of view could be a damn good way to look at things. But maybe that just means I'm stubborn.