You may be the only one in the known universe who has thought these thoughts. But don't despair. Others will follow. — Joshs

If what I say is true, it is true.
If what I say isn't true, I will learn the truth.

What is there to despair over?

Thought is the dialectical negative. It freezes motion in it's a straction, but does not stop motion in existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

Understandably, one would compare thought to the paused frame of a movie; yet it is aptly more than that. It is, for lack of a better analogy, walking on a treadmill. There appears no motion, yet there is motion.

Thought itself is motion. Thought without motion, would be unaware - and whilst maybe not impossible, irrelevant.
Thinking about something, you inadvertently move the subject of thought along with the thought - like how the river moves the fallen leaves.

I have no names to give you. I have come to this understanding through observation; and the observation of my observation has concluded the aforementioned.

Perhaps someone, somewhere has thought and/or maybe written something on this. Who knows?

What happens when we question the sense of meaning of something? Nothing.
Let me put it this way: One has a view, and when one questions, one shifts his gaze - yet his view remains in part and never whole. Maybe one looks elsewhere, maybe one tilts one's head or looks upside down; who knows?
So, I would say, when one questions anything - one merely shifts his gaze.

This aside, pardon me, for I will reiterate.
Change is an act. And an act is motion. So change is evidently motion.
But change is born of relation; and relation requires things.
When one should attempt to envision the whole, it is relative to nothing - hence it does not change, yet it be. So being is not evidently change.
You, well as I, should be able to partly understand this by our own static self-awareness; each remains oneself, unchanging - lest one should relate to something.
And so we, being parts of the whole, will always be in relation to other parts - hence changing in our being. And so our being, but not being itself, may be viewed as change; yet partly so.

As to the creation of things, whether meaning or invention - I find that man does not create, but merely finds. To reiterate once more: One shifts one's gaze from where it isn't to where it is; from lack thereof to the object.

Certainly, not merely nouns, but words and language as a whole is a distinction from what it is applied to; which is to say, describes.

Now, I will stray for a bit in saying that every monologue is a dialogue, for every monologue is one relating not to oneself, but a reflection. While it is to me, incomprehensible, when I attempt to think of it - I view monologue as mute; silent. To attempt to explain it, I would symbolise monologue through self-awareness; which whilst constantly active, is silent. Now that may be evidently contradictive, but I would view it thus: It is not contradictive, as everything has already been said and done; much like how a song and a movie are complete before they may be played.

The reason I brought that up, is to suggest that language is like the playing of the song and the movie and words are like any one frame of the song or the movie.

One cannot describe a song or a movie by a single frame; nor does a single frame constitute either, unless that single frame is all there is - the whole.

But as you know, God is viewed and referenced to as a frame but not as the frame that is all there is.
As if that was the view of God, calling it God would be pointless; literally pointless.
But like how a sentence, a word, a letter is a point somewhere - so the word God.

I think, should one preach, one should preach meaning - not words.

I believe the issue of 'The God Debate' lies with perspective.

When one attempts to debate God, perspectively, one debates God relatively. - as one would debate an object.
Instead one should ponder the whole; when one does this, the answers become apparent.

When one substitutes 'God' for 'everything' - it is apparent that everything exists, is omnipotent, omnipresent and so forth. Yet, man wishes 'God' to be a man; to be a thing. And that is the issue.
God should be the whole, not a part.

Every person has the ability to die, thus every person has the right to die.
People breathe and live, because they choose to breathe and live; and if they choose to die prematurely, the only way to stop them is to convince them that life is more desirable than death.
Indeed, people may be influenced one way or the other, but withholding their right to die is impossible, lest they are already dead.

I reiterate; Society may at best influence one to live and never enforce one to live.

Now, as to whether one should be influenced to change his course or be allowed to fall - who knows?
Yet, there is no reason not to live and die in ejoyment, no? And mutual enjoyment greatens one, whilst singular enjoyment contains one.

Philosophy will be.

How will it go to nonexistence, when nonexistence doesn't exist?

Well, this is a fundamental assumption.

Being is and isn't change. One would more often arrive at the conclusion that being would have to be change, simply because pure stasis is incomprehensible by thought. Thought itself is an act and an act is motion and motion is change.

All that be, be; and 'being' being an act of sorts, infers motion, which infers change.
Yet, when one ponders change - one may come to understand that constant change is lack of change; as it is simple repetition.

Consider an object, that moves with equal force in all directions; it goes nowhere. It is acting, yet not acting. Such is the case with being.

The relation of being is change, and perhaps the object which Heidegger takes as being, is simply the being - relative to himself; the being of things.
Perhaps not.