the funny thing about most of your ideas on this subject is that they are arguments in support of a diety and you apparently dont know it. like the thing you have said numerous times, that the universe is built on concepts at its most fundamental level. what are concepts? mental constructs.. 
and you asserting there must be a first, uncaused cause... not true, but if there was a first cause it would obviously be god.
Ok, I had promised that I wouldn't address your ramblings full of semantic mistatements, logical fallacies and ex nihilo(actually, from the depth of your imagination) (mis)evidence to support your retarded arguments, but since you now have decided to make a straw man of one of my arguments and use it to attack me, I will explain this shit to you one last time and show my argument is nothing of what you claim and in no way is an argument for the support of God. Here it goes:
There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallacy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it. This is an a priori conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause. So, the argument boils down to whether something can spring from nothing or not. It doesen't matter if the first cause was the Big Bang or something else like quantum fluctuations. In the latter case if would be an occurence simultaneous to the appearance of matter since time cannot exist without it. I am digressing. The point is that the first cause can spring from nothingness, because the first cause is not only the first cause, but it also creates the very process of causality. This is a axiomatic, semantic and tautological condition of any logical(axiomatic) derived system, which includes our Universe. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand. In mathematics, you have the number 1(quantity) and the number zero(nothingness) from which all mathematics derive. If you accept that there is something, then you also accept that there is nothing, and all more complex logical derivations arrive from that(calculus, algebra, etc). Likewise, since there was a first cause, you can say that it is something that stands in polar opposition to nothingness. Hence, the first cause can come forth from nothingness simply by being the logical antagonist of it. Hence, no God needed. Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything. I find it hard because this would be a very complex thing and the general rule in the Universe is that complexity comes from simplicity. But do I rule out God? No, I just find it extremely unlikely. The thing is that no God is needed as the first cause, no supernatural capacity that cannot be logically defined and thus understood. If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation standing in opposition to absolute nothingness(which can only exist as a concept), you can choose to call that God, but it wouldn't have any of the attributes of God, such as being self-aware and having a purpose in creation.
Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility. Since quantum fluctuations do not occure in linear time - because linear time only exists where there is matter - if quantum fluctuations turn out to be responsible for all of reality you could say that there was no first cause, since the word "first" implies time, which doesen't exist in the quantum field. So an Universe without a first cause. In this case, there certainly is no God since there is no first cause, because the most important attribute of God is being the first cause. Hence an infinite time loop means that there is no God. There could be a being more powerful than any conception we might have of God, but this being wouldn't be God since it wouldn't be the first cause.
Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely miscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
