Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

“To be perfect in the absolute mode, in the same manner, as in the modes manifested through plurality, is impossible. We are not talking about degrees of perfection but about potential, possibilities, and, ultimately, the sine qua non of existence in the light of only one possible imperative—the imperative of existence and life.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.â€� This less-perfect world (existence) is possible only through creation or recreation (“designâ€�). 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).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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 “Childâ€� 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.â€� 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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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 fittestâ€� 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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“The bigger question than determinism and free will or destiny is whether the chance is predetermined. As one of the fundamental forces of the Universe and its evolution (natural selection), the predetermined chance is not and cannot be proof against God’s existence but precisely the opposite; regardless of how paradoxical this may sound, it is proof of its existence.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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?)”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Confusion is caused by some, or many, agnostics refusing to believe or disbelieve God’s existence rather because of their interpretation of agnosticism or God than because they are inherently suspicious. If proved, one way or the other, they would accept either way. They seek evidence for God’s existence.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.â€� On the other hand, nobody can say, prove, or exclude the possibility of such proof.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“The biggest problem is not faith itself but the appropriation of faith by any particular religion or group, claiming to have the right (implicitly) to God. It is acquired through disputable knowledge and merely through “revelationsâ€� presented as truth. If only for this implicit claim, religions must be under constant scrutiny because such claims are not only logically false but are intellectually dishonest and immoral, regardless of the original intentions of their proponents. (Nonetheless, such ideas may have served an essential purpose, ethically and inspirationally, at the time of their making and for the particular people.)”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“All major philosophers are “rightâ€� 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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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.)”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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,â€� 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.â€� 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.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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 “realâ€� 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).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“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,â€� 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).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“There are ideas of many Gods (or many ideas of One God), and that’s why there are many religions in practice and hundreds of religions in the past. The question, in religions, is not what God is but who has the right to God (whose God is better).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“There is a universal reservoir, the source of all knowledge, which is the same for the arts and sciences as for philosophy and religion. In a way, science is an art. In some ways, religion is philosophy because philosophy and religion often deal with the same questions—with the first and the final causes, among others. Religious people a priori “betâ€� on God, whereas philosophers may bet on God or not. The difference in approach toward God between religion and philosophy is that religion imposes and prescribes God, and philosophy offers the freedom of thought and choice. Religious prescriptions of God are not proof of faith or God’s existence, but rather the opposite—they prove that philosophy is more “religiousâ€� than religion because it doesn’t steal God from people but offers freedom.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Canonization, limitation, and reduction of God to a “fewâ€� sentences are inconceivable attempts to kill and expel God from people under the excuse that God is doing that. There is no weakness in science and language as instruments. There is no excuse. There is only human power and weakness. Understanding depends on the balance between human strengths and weaknesses.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“The world was ready for greater discoveries two thousand years ago. (Heron of Alexandria is an excellent example of an inventor who invented the first steam engine, aeolipile.) There was a basis for it. Only the language to translate abstract ideas and symbols into the language of science was missing. The only obstacle to a human being is a human being himself. The only limitation comes from the inability to dream and pierce into the essence that permeates all that exists in the universe. There is the same law for a galaxy, for a man, and for an ant. Basic principles are the same everywhere; they never change and exist as long as the universe exists.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“God is not absolute, and Nothingness is not absolute. If we come from these positions (postulates), we confront the inability of language to be precise. This inability reveals that the problem of understanding different phenomena is not so much in the phenomena themselves but in our failure to understand or present them linguistically in the best and most precise manner.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“God, or to put it better, our idea of God, is a concept before anything else. The way God had been (mainly) understood throughout history leads to the idea of God as an entity beyond the world that creates the world and stays beyond the world but affects it. There is no proof for this, but the concept itself, by its nature, is a theoretical expression or view of a particular phenomenon. As such, applied to something invisible or tangible and visible, it is subject to change.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Many concepts and ideas become laws in time, like the laws of physics. In time, many of these same concepts lose validity in favor of new concepts that become new laws. These phenomena lead to the progress of science; otherwise, some concepts, which were previously laws, would always stay the same regardless of whether they were correct.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“New concepts or laws would not be possible without the preceding concepts or laws. What we refuse today as incorrect is the basis for something we accept as correct tomorrow. Then the question arises—if the preceding concept was incorrect, how is it possible that the new concept, or law, that we think is correct can be based on the previous and rejected one? Something “incorrectâ€� cannot be the basis for something correct. In this way, we conclude that even those laws (concepts) we reject today as incorrect contain the elements of a new law or concept or something that we think is correct or more correct. The world's universal nature cannot be wholly apprehended and observed by the human mind. All this happens while the laws stay the same; only our ideas and concepts about the laws change, not the laws or the truth (fact) itself.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Nothing in the world can be absolute except the Absolute itself. Everything else is contained and exists in relations. Relations can exist only through the division of the Absolute or God. Since no part is absolute, then no part can completely understand (including the human mind) or comprehend the whole of the Absolute. Understanding the “finalâ€� laws leads toward the end.

If humans understood and empowered themselves with the knowledge of these laws, they would cease to be humans and become what they sought to find or understand. In that way, humans become either God or nothing. The ultimate beauty is the evolution of the world. Evolution in the animal world (individual species) can be horizontal without major changes. Still, in the development of humans, it can be pretty vertical (thanks to awareness and brain power). Regardless of the vertical evolution of humans as biological beings, this is still only evolution, and evolution is only possible if something new is acquired, for the lack of final knowledge, about the final causes and the ultimate essence of being.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE