I wasn't talking about numbers, but negative sizes. A negative size doesn't exist, which is exactly what we were after more or less; 'nothing'. Extremely small things still have positive sizes. So, the analogy was good in my humble opinion.
Quote:
A negative size violates the law of non-contradiction.
Contradicting, how? We can't measure negative sizes, but it's not contradicting, or is it?
Quote:
By its definition, infinity will never have a start because you can always traverse an infinite number of days before getting there, so you'll never reach it. If you reach the start, then you know it isn't infinite.
If something goes on forever it's infinite, thus theoretically it can have a start. Tricky part is, how do you know it will go on forever? I guess, potentially infinite is a correct description. There's no real way of knowing if it is infinite, but assuming it is infinite (let's assume you've seen there's no end for logic's sake), then why wouldn't this be absolute infinity?
Quote:
If nothing exists, it will exist for an eternity because there will be no time.
Eternity is a long time though. 
Quote:
That means the universe will never begin.
Which wasn't the case, so either time has always been there 'so it could happen' or the absence of time is irrelevant for a universe to come into existence. Naturally at some point time must simply exist yes, but if there are no positive sizes, no distances and no motion then even if time does exist in this nothingness, it'll be "neutral" and non-indicative. I think time is quite artificial actually, but that's a different topic altogether,
Cheers
