Quotessence
Home / Topics / Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Browse 649 quotes about Dejan Stojanovic.

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“All we see is an "illusion" but a beautiful, meaningful, and purposeful illusion, no less real and realistic if it were the other way. The most important thing is the existence and rejuvenation of the ultimate, primordial immaterial essence. Transformation of this essence and power (supreme primary quality), similar from a human point of view to "alchemy," does not undermine the value and reality of matter and the Universe. In this sense, we believe that the ultimate immaterial Being is omnipotent and capable of creating and recreating itself through different modes of transformation. The most important transformation is the transformation of the essence into existence.”

“There is nothing beyond the Absolute. There can be no purpose, meaning, or hope if there is nothing beyond it. Purpose, meaning, and hope can only exist in relativity. Without relativity, these terms or states have no meaning. Relationships create purpose, meaning, and hope. Whenever or wherever there is a relationship, it means there is something beyond, something more significant to hope for, something to pursue and build meaning and hope through that pursuit.”

“Any dimension or number is a relative category. The number is absolute in its absolute volume, but it has its absolute volume only as a sign. No number is absolute; every number gains meaning in relations and only exists in relationships. Only the infinity is absolute and “contains every number” (potentially), but there is no last number. Infinity, as a manifestation in any of its variations, possibilities, and cycles, cannot be reached because infinity is an absolute potential. It is not possible to reach the last number. If there were the last number, there would be no infinity. Although there can be no infinite regress, there can be infinite “progress.” The idea of the infinite regress is the intellectual construct or attempt to reconstruct the “past conceptually.” In contrast, infinite progress is potential that may actualize up to every actualized point ad infinitum. There is no end to the potential of the Absolute.”

“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.”

“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.”

“COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT The First Cause Argument The real problem with the first cause argument is not if God or anything else needed a cause but if the first cause is necessary for anything. If the Ultimate Being, or Absolute, always existed, nothing else exists or can exist outside of it except a transformation, “creation,” or recreation within the Absolute. Absolute Being is not the first cause of the world. We must agree with Russel that the world is without a cause. The view that the Absolute (in someone’s eyes, God) is without a cause does not mean that the world had a different, specific cause. The world is the Absolute itself or emanation of it. The world is the life of the Absolute (or God, but not a God from religious books), not something “different” from the Absolute. Therefore, neither the Absolute, God, Nothingness, nor the Universe need a cause because they are all the Absolute itself. Absolute is the causeless cause operating within itself. The world is a manifestation of the Absolute and its celebration, lovemaking between the Being and Nonbeing in the form of the cosmic fireworks for the hidden eyes of the Absolute. The World is a causeless cause's transformation, creation, or Recreation. The Nothingness and the Being or Something are eternal and, therefore, are without a cause. The real question for atheists is how something can appear out of nothing at some point. Believing that something can come out from nothing is way less believable than the idea that there is an eternal Being that does not need a cause. We may call it whatever name we choose, but it is not necessarily incompatible with science. The limitations of science and its limited outreach cannot serve as proof against the eternal source of everything. Limitations are only proof of the level of science at some point. There is no absolute knowledge, and we can say, with almost absolute certainty, that humans cannot acquire absolute knowledge. Even if this were possible, humans would no longer be humans but be something else.”

“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.”

“At the speed of light, the mass unites every particle (Everything) in a unified “vibration.” At the speed of light, the “kinetic” force would be equivalent to the force of infinite mass. It is not that the mass becomes infinite, but the force of “mass,” “gravitational” pull, as a consequence of speed (motion), becomes as strong as if it were infinite. The source of gravitation is not mass but motion and speed (kinetic property of mass and matter). This “point” is the door between our world, as we experience it, and the primordial world. This “point” is the gateway between noumenon and appearance, between the noumenon and phenomenon.”

“At the point of “absolute speed,” the mass, energy, or anything we consider material disappears. Absolute speed is “speedless.” Absolute speed is always at the same point, which is the pointless point: speed without the speed, the point without the point—beginning, at the same time as the end. Absolute speed is motionless. Without motion or speed, there is no mass. Without motion, the mass disappears. Without motion, all laws of physics stop functioning.”

“Motion is the unifying force of Everything. Without motion, no other forces exist on the micro or macro level, quantum physics, or the Universe level. Motion is the force unifying the whole Universe in one Unified Field. This Unified Field is one organism, and we call it the Universe. Without motion, there is no unity. What powers the motion is the Universal Mind. The Universe is a Child of the Universal Mind. Although the Universe is a “program” of a Universal Mind, there is still freedom and free will based on the potential of the Absolute to always be different in its infinite manifestations.”

“When, at the speed of light, the mass becomes “infinite,” that is the moment of absolute, infinite density when space disappears. “Infinite” density is the “point” of disappearance. The spaceless point of zero is the channel between the Being and Nonbeing, between existence and nothingness. Through this zero point, the Universal Mind “materializes” itself by creating “matter” and the existing universe. That is the “point” before the Big Bang, the point of absolute density and no space or time. Absolute density is the “point” before the dispersion of Oneness (Singularity) into materialized plurality. Infinite mass is impossible. The state of absolute mass would be when everything would transform into mass, and the void would disappear. That is impossible. Reaching the state of infinite mass is the same state the “mass” or “energy” was in before the Big Bang. That state is the state of no mass and no energy. Absolute “density” is the state beyond matter and energy. This state is immaterial. The effect of the infinite kinetic energy would be equivalent to the infinite mass if possible.”

“Gravitational pull is the Max Plank’s vibration, which, as a source of motion, is the source of the gravitational pull, without which kinetic and potential energy would be zero. At this point, everything stops. At the speed of light, an object has infinite kinetic energy, which equals infinite mass. This infinite kinetic energy or infinite mass is static and massless. That is the point of absolute density. The world becomes static when its mass reaches the point of absolute speed, which would be equivalent to the same infinite point reached by the mass traveling at the speed of light. This is not infinite mass but an effect of the kinetic energy produced by the speed of light equal to the infinite mass. This proves my point that everything would stop if it were not for the kinetic energy and the “gravitational” pull fed by the immaterial Universal Source of everything.”