Quotessence
Home / Books / ABSOLUTE

ABSOLUTE

Book by Dejan Stojanovic · 27 quotes · Dejan Stojanovic, Absolute, Universe

Filter quotes by topic

ABSOLUTE Quotes

“God belongs equally to believers and atheists, but believers “authorized” the right to the word God and its meaning. Agnostics and atheists got caught on it, although they would like to know the truth, too. Since God is the truth, atheists did not realize this yet. Once they realize it, they will become believers because they believe in truth and God is Truth. However, this does not mean that the Christian God or the God of Islam is the truth, but that the truth itself is God. The majority of believers, atheists, and agnostics would instead like to know or accept the truth rather than a stolen idea of God and lies (although many of them conceived with good intentions) presented as truth.”

“An agnostic does not want to succumb to a religious heritage without proof supported by science. An agnostic is guided more by rational thinking than by emotions and religious sentiments that may or may not exist in him or her. This fight, or dilemma, in every one of us, is a fight between a believer and an atheist. Many believers are, perhaps, agnostics to some extent. They know they don’t know the truth and will never find it, but they still believe (credo quia absurdum). Faith and agnosticism do not necessarily exclude each other, as it is usually perceived, and are compatible.”

“A believer rejects the idea of disbelief merely because it is impossible to prove God’s existence or to know it in any other way except through faith. Although this may sound paradoxical, this approach is more rational than agnosticism because agnosticism excludes belief only because there is no evidence, even though providing that evidence is “impossible.” On the other hand, nobody can say, prove, or exclude the possibility of such proof.”

“All major philosophers are “right” to a greater or lesser extent. It’s not merely a matter of right and wrong but of improving thought and discoveries that lead to a clearer understanding of the world. Every major philosopher provided a bit of understanding that clarified the crucial problems, even for those who objected to the ideas of the same philosophers.”

“Opponents of the particular ideas of past philosophers may be equally indebted, to a larger or lesser extent, to the very same philosophers they oppose as those they agree with. One thing is sure—there is no complete agreement or disagreement, nor can there be one, with any of the philosophers. (Complete agreement can be expected only within purely religious thought based on the dogmas of nominal religions.)”

“The main problem lies not in the beliefs but in the conception of God. What is God? Depending on the answer to the question of what God is, our relation, not only to God but to the idea of beliefs and religions, is formed and resolved. The main obstacle to this problem comes from our concept of God and not from God or the world itself. First of all, we cannot agree on what God is. We only see, analyze, and interpret religions in their expressed forms, primarily based on revelations that serve (and must serve) as God’s given laws. In these books and “laws,” God is described, ascribed, and prescribed. As such, God is a defined and untouchable being. The status of untouchability lies in revelations by the prophets, which is to say, in “God’s own words.” That is the only legitimacy to base these laws and secure them. We have no other fact or proof except the words of the few, which we must believe and follow.”

“What do we do by following these words or rules, laws, prophets and their revelations, and religions? We only believe in those who uttered and wrote these words and revelations. However, we do not know if there were any revelations in the first place or even if they were “real” to become the measures or expressions of truth or God automatically. There is nothing beyond this secret except our belief not in God but in the people (so-called prophets).”

“These practices persisted for thousands of years, and it is a logical consequence that our real idea about God, or our idea about “real God,” necessarily became so distorted that we cannot talk about this idea or concept with almost any certainty. In this manner, we can never know if we talk about the same thing and mean the same thing unless we speak to people with the same opinions and way of thinking (followers).”

“Einstein wrote that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” but we have to remember that Einstein talks about the “cosmic religious feeling,” which is very different from the religious feeling exercised within the official religions. He explains, “[h]ow can a cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, art and science's most important function is to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.” … “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.” … “A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours, the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.” … “You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific mind without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity of the naïve man.”

“If we accept that intelligent design is not necessarily what we think it is, or if we enrich the word (term) design to contain additional meaning in extraordinary contexts or ideas about God and creation, we may understand that design may be the design without designing, that the creation may be creation without creating in the way we see it and understand it. We admit that there can be no design without designing and no creation without creating, but what is to be created or designed in the absolute? If the Absolute is the “highest” form of “existence,” then it must be, at the same time, absolute perfection. If there is absolute perfection, what creation can match the existing perfection? We must agree that no possible outcome of the Absolute can be more perfect than the Absolute itself. Absolute itself is perfection; otherwise, it would not be absolute.”

“If the creation of the world needed to be perfect (absolutely perfect), then why create (design) to arrive at the same point of the Absolute, which would be pure idleness, an idle walk from one perfection to another or from nothing to another nothing? If the purpose of creating is not only in creating but more in existing, and not only in existing per se but in meaningful and purposeful existing, then this creating or creation must first and foremost accommodate its purpose rather than perfection itself. Its perfection must be valued and measured by and through its purpose and meaning rather than by pure perfection. Measure through purpose makes us see the deeper importance and meaning in the lack of ordinary perfection. Perfection and absolute goodness (benevolence) are not necessarily as we see them and would like to see them. When we measure ideals through purpose, the idea, function, and manifestation of perfection and purpose become more pronounced, although subtly.”

“If absolute perfection is an idle walk from one point to another, which is no walk at all, then there is no existence and no life. If we come from this postulate and premise, the existence and life, as we see it, must be, conditionally speaking, “less perfect.” This less-perfect world (existence) is possible only through creation or recreation (“design”). But this creation is not possible without recreation. There is nothing to start from except the Absolute itself—Being and Nonbeing (Something and Nothing). There is nothing to hope for outside this realm. Nothing can be created from nothing if the Being does not create it. Regardless of how omnipotent it is, the Being cannot create anything except out of itself. Even creation out of itself would not be the real creation but recreation because the created being would still be the same (although modified).”

“Now we come to the idea of ex nihilo. We do not know anything about the world before the Big Bang, which could mean that the world came from nothing. But if we ask religious people, nothing can be created out of nothing. But if nothing comes out of nothing, the creation must be the “Child” of existing something, which must be God. If even God cannot create something out of nothing, it must create the world (universe) out of itself. If this creation is the creation out of itself, then it cannot inherently be different from the so-called “creator.” If it cannot be inherently different from the creator, then this creation cannot be precisely called creation but recreation. But even this recreation is impossible without the Nothing. In this sense, there is a creation (partially) out of nothing (ex nihilo) because the real creating force is the Absolute and not only a God or a Universal Mind. The Universal Mind creates and procreates with the help of Nothingness and not solely from nothingness because ex nihilo nihil fit—from nothing, nothing comes to be.”

“If God is perfect, from a religious point of view, why would creation be needed? Why create a world which is inherently less perfect than the creator itself? Why not create Paradise immediately and avoid original sin and eternal torment in Hell? Paradise is a more peaceful and ideal place. Why challenge and tempt a human being so much? Why provoke a potential rebellion by the “Devil?” Is it the boredom of God? Is it creating solely for creating? Or is it the creation in the pursuit of purpose and meaning? What higher purpose and meaning is there if not perfection itself? Following our already elaborated ideas, we should not view this purpose from the point of perfection. Still, the point of existence and life, for even a perfect God, is dead and nonexistent at absolute perfection. Absolute perfection obliterates existence.”

“Perfection” of existence is in its plurality and its “imperfection.” Existence contains the whole purpose in a constant, eternal pursuit of perfection. In this pursuit, the mode, motives, and, above all, meaning are found. Even if there were a possibility for perfect particularities within the realm of existence (world, universe), this perfection would still undermine the higher perfection achieved through evolution. The perfection of particularities would undermine the absolute potential of the Absolute for infinity. The world must be “perfect” (or “imperfect”) not only concerning the Absolute and not only concerning the particular realities but also proportionately perfect (or imperfect) concerning its potential and the potential of the Absolute concerning eternity and infinity.”

“The Absolute can exercise its potential only through non-accidental accidents or chances. Chance, although almost accidental, is not accidental. In a predetermined world, chances would not be possible. Even if chances existed, they would only be appearances of chances and not real chances. In a world (universe) established based on its full potential, chance is compatible with determinism. This almost absurd statement becomes logical if observed from the point of view of the potential of the Absolute, which is predetermined. Absolute is not only absolute but also capable of infinity by exercising its infinite potential.”

“Although the absolute potential of the Absolute and its existence are predetermined, any particular existence is developed, among other things, through chance. The voyage toward infinity allows free will and secures its compatibility with determinism based on the absolute potential of the Absolute itself. The absolute potential would not be possible without the magic force of chance. If a world were predetermined, that would be like playing out the story with the known outcome. In such a world, even if existence, or multiple creations, would go ad infinitum, the outcome of any possible existence (universe) would be predetermined and therefore known at the moment of creation. If this were possible, even theoretically, what would be the purpose of such existence (existences) if the outcome is already known? If the sole purpose were to exist, this possibility would not satisfy the ultimate purpose, which is the meaning itself.”

“The only real purpose and the only real meaning lies in freedom, and there is no real freedom without free will. Free will can only exist if there is an element of chance. But this chance is not a chance as we ordinarily view it, but a chance for possibility and existence, a chance of existence itself. In this manner, the fundamental forces of the world are manifested in the world, regardless of the level of awareness of this knowledge. Knowledge of the world is intrinsic to the world, irrespective of its level or degree of awareness. On the other hand, Chance is the real potential of the world.”

“Only emptiness and nothingness can provide space to the world; chance is the uniting force of the Being and the Nonbeing. If we view evolution in this context, evolution, as selection, is no longer a random selection or Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” but the survival of existence itself. Whatever survives is thanks not only through combinations and recombination of some otherwise self-organized dead matter, self-powered peculiarly through an infinite series of accidents, but rather through an infinite series of predetermined chances. Determinism is based more on chance than on determination. A determined chance is not a chance, strictly speaking. This chance is not chaotic and random. The chance is more orderly than a lack of chance. The chance gives rise to a more deterministic world regarding purpose, meaning, and destiny. Destiny is the purpose of determination. But destiny, as all else discussed, is not necessarily determined. What is determined is that there should be existence, purpose, and meaning. From the point of view of purpose and meaning, the best possible existence is the existence responsible for its own becoming through chance.”

“If chance is less accidental than we think and the world is less self-governed, the outcome is also the same for believers and non-believers. All arguments and counterarguments become worthless because of existence's vastness and paradoxical nature or the universe itself. Under such a scenario, all views or counterarguments would fit equally on either side.”

“What is natural selection? Do organisms develop due to an environment, or does the environment only trigger the potential to evolve in almost endless ways? What determines the survival of the fittest? How are the fittest organisms or animals formed? How can the first fittest animal be formed, and based on what? How can anybody, or anything, become stronger or better than anybody else or anything else, from the same material, under the same conditions? (Is fitness already there?)”

“Agnosticism is compatible with faith. We either believe or not, irrespective of our ability to find the truth. Faith, developed or established based on the nominal religion, is not proof of our ability to prove God’s existence and is not proof of our implied agnosticism. Genuine faith is based on the belief in God regardless of the lack of evidence, religion, or agnosticism that may exist in a believer.”

“A believer is not necessarily someone who never had any doubts about the existence of God but rather someone who did not submit to skepticism and doubt. A believer is the one who fights agnosticism; an agnostic is the one who submits to it. To put it differently—a believer is the one whose atheism (or agnosticism) submits to his or her faith (or belief); an atheist is the one whose faith (if there is any) submits to atheism rather than submitting to faith or agnosticism; an agnostic is the one in whom faith and disbelief are equally present. This equidistance to God and atheism makes agnostics appear somewhat indifferent about these questions. Agnostics would rather wait for proof than bother tirelessly with the question without evidence. In believers, faith wins; in atheists, disbelief wins; in agnostics, neither belief nor disbelief wins.”