“What’s up?” said the padawan to Socrates-Buddha
“Nothing” said the master
@Smears
This seems to be aligned with the OP. So of course, I agree with you. The concept of ‘Nothing’ when used to attribute relevance, is reasonable, what isn’t reasonable, is to say that there’s a space somewhere in the Universe that contains absolute nothingness.
We don’t make order out of nothing. We make order out of something. Nothing is used to disregard, and apply the lowest possible significance. Significance is relative, therefore, nothing is relative.
Also, I would say nothing is actually the antithesis of chaos. Nothing is absolute order, for it is completely void of anything that could cause affect, which is required for chaos.
Simple. 
I’d second what James said.
@James S Saint
Again, you’ve a way with words… Nicely done!
One problem is that people assume that nothing and something can’t be simultaneously occurring in a single point of focus. Also, no one is actually making any arguments about nothing or something, so much as they are framing these concepts in a way that only illustrates the problem of universals vs particulars. You’ve gotta be able to look at dots in a circle and say, there’s something in this circle, and there’s nothing around them in the circle, and that’s ok. Because even though empty space can seem like something, its nothing when we are just talking about the dots. Shits relative to the object in question. Motherfuckers need to cut out this continental poetic "nothing/existence/goes on forever/ etc…and just start trying to come up with good ways of describing what’s in front of them. You solve big picture philosophical problems with a lot of tedious work, not with emotional exchanges of flowery words.
Smears,
I agree that fighting ignorance can be tedious.
There’s a topic called E-Prime. You should check it out. If you embraced it, it may make communication more agreeable.
As for flowery words… When one believes in or values something, one seeks to express it. You may choose a matter of fact approach to do this, and others choose flowery emotional words, but have no doubt, their expression is no less sincere or valid than yours.
It may be more or less valuable, though. The purpose of making statements is not always simply to vent one’s feelings on a matter, and most certainly not when talking about something one believes to be important.
We’re dealing with language. Language doesn’t always need concrete objects for referents; “nothing” is a linguistic construction rather than a description of the world. Or alternatively, its descriptive value is dependent solely on linguistic context. I think we agree on that, although I’m not sure.
Well , I see “nothing” as “no thing”, so no atoms or higs bosens (or whatever the fuck they are called), no thing ordered, just the potential for order to be applied and stuff created out of nothing.
If you are seeing “nothingness” as the “potential for something”, I could agree.
But, if nothing is all you have, to what can “order be applied”?
Absolute nothingness is already infinite order wherein there is nothing impure or disorderly.
James S Saint
Unlimited is a dimension!
Hmm, I’ll put it in this ‘metaphoric’ language: 
Gods creation would be in part infinite due to his nature, and in occurrence [with form and time etc ~ objects in motion] ‘finite’. there would be a language within the context of the creation between the limited and the unlimited. That language would be an effect/affect [?] of one upon the other, hence because you have nothingness and thingness communicating and acting relative to one another, then nothingness is having an effect; not an effect of nothingness, but an effect of it being there, that the limited has to relate to the unlimited.
Interesting about the aberrant affects. Is affectance then something to the language inc what I said above? What is otherwise making the affect/ance? There is no requirement for that question if we include the nothingness [being infinite n all].
Sure [or if they know it will shag their theories up the arse ~ and atheism] but the universe exists and at some point was less than particles [bit of a jump I know]. How can that be described as anything other than nothingness as a thing, but without dimensions ~ because there is no-thing in it to define them.
_
You seem to be jumbling a variety of concepts together and I’m having a hard time trying to follow and assess your point.
I suspect at the bottom of it, you have a misconception concerning God.
Probably [dont we all 
] as I am not sure if I believe in God, or that he may actually be part of the creational process rather than behind it.
But what I was visualising would be a God which like reality is greater than infinite if for no other reason than it is also limited/existent also. Such a God would surely express/affect on both an infinite and finite scale, no?
The other point was analogously; if I have a box on my desk, it affects what else I can put on my desk, if the box is then nothingness, it can have an effect not in and of itself, but just by being there.
Infinity is a rather large box, and may define as to why all other things [existence] are so small/limited.
_
Believe it or not, the “Real God” is beyond merely infinite. So your assessment in that regard is right. But a box that isn’t there, does nothing to what IS there.
The box refers to the nothingness and not God!
I suspect that we lost each other in our examples. 
Haha yup. 