Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“Based on our perceptions and beliefs, the starting point cannot change the nature of the Universe. Created or uncreated, the Universe is. The Universe would never be different, regardless of our point of view; only our ideas about the Universe may change. The more important question is whether our concept of the Universe would be different if we changed our starting position. Could the Universe potentially be different depending on these two starting points? Either way, if God created it or it always existed in one form or another, the Universe may show and possess the same qualities, in which case this dichotomy would not be substantially important, except formally. The third idea could imply God in the Universe (not in the strict sense of Spinoza's pantheism) and the Universe in God. What does this mean? It means that the Universe is, in either case, a manifestation of something that has always existed. If something never existed, it would not be able to come into Being. Absolute nothingness cannot give birth to anything, either God or the Universe. If this were the case, then Nothingness would be the first cause. If God is the first cause and source of everything, then based on this logic, God would be nothing because God came from nothing. On the other hand, if the Universe came from nothing, the Universe would be nothing. Only nothing can come from nothing. Nothing is incapable of creating or making anything. Therefore, the question of who created God or who created the Universe is, at best, counterproductive and sterile.”

“If we try to answer these questions, we will again be faced more with our inherited ideas about the Universe and God than with the reality and essence these terms should represent. Therefore, we should try to enrich and redefine these and many other terms we use. We, human beings, decided that the word (term, idea) God means, and should mean, something inherently different from the Universe. We also decided that the Universe means and should mean something different from God. But, if we, somewhat arbitrarily, determined not only the destiny of these terms and ideas but, based on them, our very conception and perception of what these ideas and terms are supposed to represent, one may ask how much closer these ideas and reasoning have brought us to the truth.”

“Once we have established our ideas and definitions, the main underlying question is whether our goal has been more in preserving and fighting for the preservation of our concepts and already established ideas as they are or in finding out if they represent the truth as it is and ought to be and not only as it is defined, arbitrarily declared, proclaimed or prescribed? If we get rid of all dogmas and established paradigms, we can conclude that what we seek must be the truth itself, regardless of how well or to what degree it would fit our views, concepts, and beliefs.”

“We must notice that religious thought, for instance, as presented by their most elaborate, learned, and sophisticated proponents, regardless of the grasp and superb philosophical knowledge (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are extraordinary examples), did not, even with the best efforts to fight dogma and go from strictly philosophical positions, try to conceive God as something different from God as presented in Christianity or the Bible. A similar situation exists with the other predominant monotheistic religion, Islam. Based on this logic, as a subject of philosophical inquiry, God became a priori a question of how to establish the right to God more than how to set the truth (the right to the truth) itself.”

“Everything singular can be conceived and, sooner or later, comprehended by thought. Everything that is not true has the potential to be disclosed as such—not accurate. However, in its totality, the final, absolute truth is beyond reach—it is hiding and shifting. Still, as perfection, the Absolute cannot be untrue because, in that case, it would not be perfection. Therefore, it must be perfect and true at the same time. It is possible to conceive the Absolute as the truth. In this sense, it is possible to conceive that Nothing is the truth.”

“Just of itself—nothing is nothing, but just of itself, something, even the biggest something or God, is nothing too. Nothing is uncreated and doesn’t need a creator. However, the world would not be possible without this uncreated Nothing, regardless of God’s “omnipotence.” Since God cannot create nothingness, its omnipotence is contingent upon nothingness. If omnipotence is contingent upon anything, it is not absolute omnipotence, even if this anything is nothing.”

“The world from nothing is impossible, and life from nonlife is impossible. The world was always here, in one way or another, and nothingness was always here. The World is the Universal Mind’s “program” of the Absolute that, by involving nothingness, becomes the Universe. However, the Universe still bears all that is known and unknown to us with the spark of life in it.”

“We mostly envision infinity as something beyond our reach and in outer space. However, if it existed, infinity would have to expand on a micro-level within something we may imagine as the inner space. If we say it this way, infinity cannot be only outside; it must also be “inside” with no end to the material universe anywhere in outer space and on its micro-level. It also means that, if we simplify the idea, the tiniest particles, quarks, “strings,” or waves, would be larger, compared to what they contain within themselves, than the visible Universe in comparison to us.”

“Without the original impetus from the Universal Mind, matter would be lifeless, immobile stuff, even if it somehow existed independently, and space would only be emptiness or absolute void, unaffected or minimally affected by the created world or universe. What powers the Universe is the main force, the source of all forces, and Everything. All the rest is an illusion, and our interpretation is a consequence of our senses and thinking. Our world is a program of an Absolute, Universal Mind working with the Absolute Void (its only means) to create the World. The main unifying force enabling all this is the Absolute itself.”

“Senses make perceptions possible with feelings, emotions, and thoughts in humans. From an earthly point of view, senses empower the higher levels of life, conditionally speaking. However, what empowers the world is the possibility of and for relationships. If the absolute world is ultimate and one, relations are not possible. Any division of oneness is, in a way, the opposite of the absolute. The Absolute must stay intact to be absolute, but the Absolute is “dead” at the point of its absoluteness, which is Zero. Absolute nothingness is dead at the Zero point of its absoluteness. The absolute Being (God) is “dead” at the point of its absoluteness, which is Zero. The whole Triad of the Absolute, with its components of God and Nothingness, is Zero if it is only the Absolute without established relations within itself.”

“Every part of the Absolute is connected and interconnected through the intrinsic value of everything that exists. The absolute value of the finite is absolute in its finitude and infinitude. Its finiteness makes connection and relationships (life) possible in the absolute sense. The infiniteness of the finite is absolute because it lies in the ability of the finite to resemble the infinite in its potential for variations. Every finite value is potentially infinite.”

“The Absolute, without life, is dead not only because of its power, omnipotence, and omniscience but also because of its absolute finiteness. The Absolute is the most finite thing. The totality of power and knowledge makes the absolute obsolete. Its total knowledge is its ultimate limit. Its total power excludes purpose and meaning. There is no purpose and meaning in absolute knowledge and power. The purpose is already there in the Absolute, that which should be longed for.”

“Everything in nature coexists with something else. Our perceptions come from relations. We must see and perceive what we experience in specific ways; slight differences don’t count. What we see is not a matter of choice for the most part—to see the world, to feel heat, cold, and fear. All that exists has its frequency and structure within a larger structure. Since there is a connection between everything, the existence of one depends on the effect it makes on another in a very peculiar way. This effect is more of a result when the impacted one is the source of life and existence for the One that initially caused and produced it all.”

“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).”

“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.”

“The Argument from Design Based on Russell's treatment of this argument, we assume that Russel expected that the world's creation, by design, had to be perfect. But, as with all other arguments, we must establish what design and perfection mean. If we do not clearly define what design is and what perfection is, we are applying our judgments to something either undefined or loosely defined. Evolutionary theory, be it Darwin’s theory, cannot be proof of a bad design of the world. Anomalies or shortages in the world are not proof of a bad design. Imperfections are needed in the world and serve a higher purpose. Let’s say that God if he existed, wanted to create the perfect world. This perfect world would be sterile. In the perfect world, there would be no cosmic hierarchies, lows, and highs, enough friction to sustain life as something whose purpose is not to be made perfect from the beginning but to seek perfection, to make “progress” in myriad ways toward the main purpose which is life itself. Life, by definition, is not perfect. Perfect life is not a real life. The purpose of design is not to predict a Ku Klux Klan or the fascists and eliminate them from the design before any creation but to put the “engine” of the vast Universe in motion, to enable the world to seek its paths freely, without a God playing dice. That is where determinism and free will come together to create a sensible world. Design does not mean playing dice, nor necessarily creating something new, but the creator offers himself an exit to exist in an ever-new world, a new form with meaning. We also may say that in the Universe or Omniverse, beyond our knowledge, there can be not only thirty-six (to make a comparison with dice) but a googolplex of universes (dice), and the possibility for combinations is infinite. “Impossibility to prove God” is not proof that God does not exist. Russel would argue that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, but the world itself is proof of God’s existence. The solution to this enigma is to recognize that the world is God. The problem is not belief or disbelief, first cause, natural law or good or bad design, or any other argument for the existence or against the existence of God; the problem is in our understanding and consensus about the idea of what God is. Argumentation or proof can never be shifted to only one side. Something so obvious as the world does not need proof but understanding that the world is also, in its deepest nature, God itself. We can fight as long as we want, but if we fight from different positions for the sake of different positions, we are not going anywhere. God is not the same for the theist or the deist. Christian God is so far from Spinoza’s idea about God. The majority of people who are atheists today are atheists more in revolt against nominal, official religions and not necessarily in revolt against God if this God was better defined or approached from an angle unaffected by religions.”

“We cannot say that what we don’t understand about the universe or what we do not know about the universe does not exist. Our ignorance about the myriad of unknown and outstanding issues does not mean that these issues are teapots orbiting the sun or dragons or spirits hiding in our garages, apartments, or homes. There is only one home we all inhabit. That home is this universe, this world we live in. We learned much about our home but constantly pursued discoveries and new knowledge to bring us closer to the stars and the core of everything. That core of everything that we all crave hides beyond our cognitive abilities and shifts away again and again, regardless of our progress and discoveries. Are we closer to the truth today than Plato was almost 2,500 years ago?”

“Since both past and present are in the Primordial Being, he has already walked his way; he will not arrive at any other time or have more or less time. He will return to the same “place” simultaneously, beyond time. He swims outside time and seeks and offers the purpose through the artifice of time. No particle is aware of its most profound memory. However, every particle rushes through time in its unmistakable walk, and every mistake is part of this unmistakable walk, part of its perfection.”

“Life has no meaning without the past and future; the present, without the past and the future, is the frozen moment. We all fight for the present, but if anything exists in time, that is the past and the future. Is it possible to measure the present? How long does it last? The present second is not the present: before we think about it, it becomes the future; when we think about it, it becomes the past, and the future becomes the past in the exact second. (This is a good argument about particles and waves since we cannot determine a particle’s exact position and momentum.) What time is there in the present? Only the Absolute is in the absolute present because the absolute present is timeless and spaceless. The present is eternity, and eternity is nothing.”

“If we divide the second, every fraction becomes the past faster than the speed of thought and every fraction of every fraction. We would need to step down to the Zero Point of time to measure the present; we would need to divide the smallest number by the infinite number of numbers and look for the past in the infinity of the second. The whole matter is smaller than the numberless “number” of infinity. Infinity is endless.”