The truth is the truth no matter what its source even the pagan Aristotle and Indian mysticism. I accept and agreed with many of Dayanand's ideas. We should accept those ideas that are correct, for example, (1) God is one, all powerful, and God needs nothing from anyone or anything. (2) God knows everything. There is nothing that a human can tell God that God does not know. (3) God is good. Everything God does is good. There is no evil associated with God. (4) God formed the world (out of preexisting material) to function according to the laws of nature. There is no need to change these laws since God considered everything that will happen before instituting them. The laws of nature are good.

We should reject ideas that we know are not true such as mysticism and reincarnation (reincarnation is mystical and not rational). We should not reject truthful ideas even if the people or nation or group teaching them do not accept or even believe in God, for example, atheists and scientists are correct to be studying science. Secular knowledge is important. It is not an all or nothing acceptance. Those ideas that are true are true, those ideas held by the same people that are not true are not true

I accept and agreed with many of Dayanand's ideas.
Vj ~ And being a man of great wisdom and humility he declared the Vedas, the origin of all his ideas.

We should reject ideas that we know are not true
Vj ~ Like the false idea of Spinoza's philosophy which is completely void of a source knowledge.

Vijai is surprised to learn that I accept many (but of course not all) of Dayanand's ideas since the truth is the truth no matter what its source even the pagan Aristotle. Yes, those ideas that are true are true, those ideas held by the same people that are not true are not true. We should reject ideas that are not true such as Dayanand's belief in an anthropomorphic god, the mystical, superstitious notion of reincarnation and a revelation in which you cannot prove.

Be it as it may, Aristotle defined the purpose of humans – a purpose that distinguishes people from animals – as rationality. People are people because they think, and an excellent “fine and noble” person – a person who is truly human – is a person who is fully rational.

Dayanand's belief in an anthropomorphic god
Vj ~ Just show me stupid, where in Dayanand's work he has indicated God to be anthropomorphic?

superstitious notion of reincarnation
Vj ~ So what's the purpose of creation?

Aristotle defined the purpose of humans
Vj ~ And Confucius defined two categories of humans.

"Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change."

Vijai wants to know where Dayanand expressed his beliefs in an anthropomorphic god. Obviously, whenever he said that god miraculously revealed holy books. Only an anthropomorphic god could write a book. You need to think man!

Only a person who is fully rational is a person who is truly human. In contrast, the stupidest consist of those who believe in an anthropomorphic god, reincarnation, and revelation. Dayanand had no idea how stupid, inadequate, and thoughtless, these ideas were.

You need to think man!

Vj ~ Definitely the logic of a fool.
One who doesn't know the origin of language is telling one who knows to "think"!

Dayanand had no idea how stupid,
Vj ~ Spinoza who doesn't know the origin of language is calling Dayanand, who knows, "stupid"!

superstitious notion of reincarnation

Vj ~ So what's the purpose of creation?

Trying to dodge this one eh! Let's put Spinoza's reason to a test!

Vijai wants to know the purpose of creation.
Good question.
I have devoted my life to trying to answer that question, a question which I have put to many other wise men. So make yourself comfortable, Vijai. I have a long memory, and I shall indulge it. I shall begin at the beginning and tell you what I know of the creation of this world, and of all other worlds too. I shall explain why evil is — and is not.

In his Tractatus Theologica-Polticus, Spinoza wrote: “that God is absolutely and really the cause of all things which have essence, whatsoever they may be.” However, he is careful to say that God is not the cause of evil since they are not essences, “therefore God was not the cause of them." He explains that God is eternal, not made of parts, infinite, indivisible, has no imperfection, and no other being like God exists. He denies the existence of miracles and revelation. Furthermore, where G-d to "speak" it would stand in violation of His essence, for God has no vocal cords. Similarly, it is illogical to imagine that God wrote a book since God has no hands or fingers.

No one has a monopoly on truth, as can be clearly seen (since Feb 16, 2019), Vijai wrote that “the "wise" are cocksure.” Thus, by your own admission, you admit that you are stupid (cocksure). I, likewise, also admit that I am intelligent but full of doubt. This is reasonable. However, there is a difference. One is intelligent and the other stupid.

Be it as it may, "the trouble with the world is that the stupid (Vijai) are cocksure and the intelligent (Spinoza) are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

It is impossible to know why God created the world. Anything you say is pure speculation. Spinoza agrees with this.

The popular notions that God created people so that they can commune with God, and the idea that God did so because God loves people, is pure nonsense. I think of God as being all powerful, and an all powerful being does not need to commune or be loved or need to see people doing or passively perform irrelevant devotional deeds.

Furthermore, if God needed these things, why did God wait to create? This later idea bothered people who answered, God created other cultures before the present one and destroyed them. As with all other suppositions, this is pure speculation. We just do not know, and never will.

Although most people feel uncomfortable when they do not know something that is important to them, the answer is that we simply do not know and may never know.

I have devoted my life
Vj ~ More like devoting your life to stupidity.

No one has a monopoly on truth
Vj ~ First of all only an idiot would make such a claim. You have to know what is true before making such a claim.

Vijai wrote that “the "wise" are cocksure.” Thus, by your own admission, you admit that you are stupid (cocksure). I, likewise, also admit that I am intelligent but full of doubt.
Vj ~ I said when it comes to philosophy there are three categories of men. The wise (Dayanand), who knows, the intelligent (Dawkins) who is full of doubt and the stupid (Spinoza) who is cocksure.

It is impossible to know why God created the world. Anything you say is pure speculation. Spinoza agrees with this.
Vj ~ So you're saying Spinoza agrees god doesn't know everything?

we simply do not know and may never know.
Vj ~ This has got to be the height of stupidity! You're saying Spinoza who does not know is wiser than Dayanand who knows.

Vijai said, "So you're saying Spinoza agrees god doesn't know everything?"

People like to think that God knows all, but there are Arabs, wise Arabs, like Averroes that may disagree. Some scholars felt that God only knows generalities, the laws of nature that God created or formed – but God does not know details; God does not know people as individuals. God knows the generalities (the human species) but not the particular (the man). Thus, the commonly-held notion that God is all-knowing may not be true.

Arabic philosopher Averroes felt that the world functions in a natural manner. That is to say that the world functions according to the laws of nature, with God dissociated from human affairs.

God does not know people as individuals.
Vj ~ Then how are people individually rewarded for the practice of virtue and punished for sinful actions?

God is not the cause of evil
Vj ~ So what is the cause of evil?

What is the source of evil? It is not God, the devil, or the stars. Thus, evil is the result of one of three things: people harm themselves; others harm them; or they suffer from natural events, such as hurricanes, which are good for the world as a whole but may not be good for a particular person. Thus God is not the cause of the evils on earth.

The philosophers did not believe in reward and punishment. Just as it is ridiculous to imagine people rewarding and punishing fish for their behavior, so, too, these people say, God neither rewards nor punishes. They do not occur after death: rather, they are a natural occurrence experienced by people on earth.

Thus God is not the cause of the evils on earth
Vj ~ You haven't answered the question. What is the origin of evil?

The philosophers did not believe in reward and punishment.
Vj ~ Then it is obvious they aren't philosophers, to begin with. If you don't have all the answers and may not know everything, won't it make sense to continue the inquiry until you find one who has the answers?

"Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change." Confucius

Again, evil does not come from God. It is the result of one of three things: (1) people harm themselves, (2) harm caused by others, and (3) people harmed by the forces of nature, which are good for the world as a whole, but may harm individuals.

Again, evil does not come from God.
Vj ~ I know good and evil aren't a creation of God.

It couldn't come from people themselves since not all people harm themselves or harm others. Not all people are affected by the forces of nature.

As a matter of fact, if none of the above occurs it would mean there is no evil.

Evil is the result of one of three things: people harm themselves, others harm them, or the laws of nature which are good for the world as a whole but may harm people. (There are several others but generally, the origin of evil falls within these three categories).

True, if people avoided doing these things, and if people did not perceive natural phenomenon as evils because they focus on themselves, it would seem that there would be no evil.

My guess is that you can't help being an idiot.

My gratitude to wise men like Confucius and Plato who helped to shape my understanding of the ignorant.

"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change."

"The wise speak because they have something to say and fools because they have to say something."

Dayanand believed in the transmigration of souls, the passing of a person’s soul after death into another newly born body. He used this notion to explain why righteous people are punished. People suffer because of their sins and for no other reason. Righteous people suffer because of the sins their soul committed in a prior life. Conversely, wicked individuals may prosper because of righteous deeds they performed in their prior life.

Averroes would criticize Dayanand. He would disparage Dayanand for abandoning true precepts of philosophy and capitulating to the theology of the uneducated masses.

Dayanand believed in the transmigration of souls,
Vj ~ So what's wrong with such a belief? Isn't happiness and sorrow an everyday phenomenon?
Would it not be an injustice for a soul to suffer for no reason at all and one to enjoy happiness without the practice of virtue?

Averroes would criticize Dayanand.
Vj ~ What's the difference? Aren't you're doing the same right now.

He would disparage Dayanand for abandoning true precepts of philosophy
Vj ~ Frankly speaking, I don't see how that is possible when Dayanand's true concept of philosophy has a source knowledge (Vedas) and is 2 billion years old.

The problem is that reincarnation is mystical and not rational. Those who do believe it say it is a miracle and science has never proven that miracles occur.

The language of the vedas is very old, however, show me one which is billions of years.

Karl Marx’s criticism of religion: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

Since time began, intelligent people realized they had ideas they could not share with others, yet they had to speak, they learnt to lie. Highly respected philosophers did so because most people can’t understand the truth. Thus, they wrote that God spoke to prophets, you will be resurrected, pray and God will help you, there will be a time when all evil will cease, etc. Thus, the famed Arab philosopher Abu Nasr al-Farabi (Al-farabi) wrote in his book The Ideal Religion that philosophers must not reveal the truth to the general population because most people cannot deal with the truth. Indeed, it is necessary in order to control the masses. The wise Arab philosopher Ibn Tufayl explains the process in his Hayy Ibn Yaqzan parable. The vast majority of people simply cannot be taught the truth and are threatened by it. This is what Karl Marx meant with his criticism of religion: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

Also, I think that there is lots of truth in the theories of evolution. I believe that people have evolved. But if you want to argue against science, good luck.

Again, give me a text that is billions of years. I didn't ask for a link. And if I look like an a-ss it is because "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

And knowledge of oneself and the sciences is the goal of existence.

Since time began, intelligent people realized they had ideas they could not share with others, yet they had to speak, they learnt to lie.
Vj ~ You're and idiot! If they had to lie they weren't intelligent to begin with.

Also, I think that there is lots of truth in the theories of evolution.
Vj ~ Science of evolution is a breach of natural laws.
Progression is always downwards!

You abandon true precepts of philosophy and science and capitulate to the theology of the uneducated masses.

Again, the vast majority of people simply cannot be taught the truth and are threatened by it. Thus, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote about a “noble lie,” one that the people needed to believe to be able to live without fear.

Thus, the Greek philosopher
Vj ~ There were wiser men long before greek philosophers.
The idea of reasoning is to use these philosophers wisdom to get to these wiser men who knew everything.

That is not how reasoning works at all. Again, you are abandoning true philosophy for the theology of the uneducated masses, those who say they are "cocksure."

That is not how reasoning works at all.
Vj ~ So how come you're using "famed Arab philosopher Abu Nasr al-Farabi (Al-farabi)" to promote your belief?

Al-farabi tells us that Plato couldn’t reveal the truth to everyone because they would not understand it and would feel threatened by ideas that conflict with what they felt was true. Al-farabi states that Plato could not teach the general population that spending one’s life developing one’s mind is the only true fulfillment of human existence. Thus, Plato resorted to the “noble lie,” a version of the truth that people could accept. The teachings were noble because, while untrue, they helped people.

Al-farabi tells us that Plato couldn’t reveal the truth to everyone because they would not understand it
Vj ~ And who revealed the truth to Al-farabi?

God can only be understood by studying and knowing the laws of nature, the sciences, and using scientific knowledge. Qur’an study alone cannot help people understand God.

But since some say that Allah composed the Qur’an, and that in Islam Prophet Muhammad is important to many Muslims, and since Al-farabi felt the need to help people, he learnt to lie. The majority of people cannot be taught the truth.

The Greek philosopher Plato writes in his Republic and other works that the masses need to be taught untruthful myths – called “noble lies” – in order to survive. Thus, God never communicated with prophets. In this he was right.

called “noble lies”
Vj ~ A very good reason why you're so f-u-c-ked up!

The pagan Greek Plato said that "noble lies" helped people who cannot be taught the truth. Even the Qur'an seemed to sanction lies. Although people may consider this incredibly insulting, philosophers recognize that the vast majority of people need to be taught fraudulent notions and treated in a paternalistic fashion by those who are convinced they know what is best for them.

"noble lies" helped people who cannot be taught the truth.
Vj ~ You're still f-u-c-ked up!

Surprising as it may sound, it is a tradition for philosophers to lie to the masses; and if you cannot handle this simple truth then it serves to prove that you are only one of the many stupid, uneducated masses.

Most People, indeed the vast majority of people cannot be taught the truth and are threatened by it.

it is a tradition for philosophers to lie to the masses; and if you cannot handle this simple
Vj ~ Well what would be the purpose of truth, noble lies and whatever else if there is no afterlife?

I don’t think that people need to believe that a soul exists. Science proved that souls do not exist. Additionally, and this will bother many, but that which cannot be sensed by the five senses, is contrary to logic, and denied by science is false. You are just fooling yourself, simply because it feels good. Karl Marx said, “religion [is] the opiate of the masses.”

The Moslem Averroes and the Greek Aristotle recognize that nothing disappears from the earth. It only changes its shape. Therefore the intellect (not the soul because they do not think that there is a soul) gets absorbed by a greater intellect. There is no paradise — only the intellect exists after death.

Science proved that souls do not exist.
Vj ~ How can science do that, dumb-a-s-s?
"Science without religion is lame....... Albert Einstein

only the intellect exists after death.
Vj ~ How is that possible dumb-a-s-s, when everything physical of the body seizes to exist?

Science has been unable to prove that a soul exists. Philosophers have questioned how it is possible for an inanimate soul to control a body when the two have no physical connection.

Two well-respected scientists, Sir Roger Penrose (worked with Stephen Hawking) and Stuart Hameroff argue that consciousness (intellect) is quantum, stored in microtubules. When a person dies their intellect is released and exists after death. This is purely scientific. Yes, it is possible.

When a person dies their intellect is released and exists after death.
Vj ~ So what is purpose of the intellect existing after death?

It is impossible to connect with God, as mystics think, even by prayer. People cannot even connect with God after death. Thus, it is impossible to know. It is impossible to know why God created the world. Anything you say is pure speculation.

Thus, it is impossible to know.
Vj ~ So you're comfortable with people who are as stu-p-id as you are? That's ok with me!

Anything you say is pure speculation.
Vj ~ Indeed truth is "pure speculation" in the mind of an id-i-ot!

What is the meaning and purpose of life without resorting to false explanations offered by myths and superstitions?

resorting to false explanations offered by myths and superstitions?
Vj ~ How would you know what is "myths and superstitions" if you don't know why "God created the world"?

Why did God create the world?

Why did God create the world?
Vj ~ First sensible question you've asked.

Here you're are Creation.

Enjoy!

Thank you for sharing the link. I enjoyed it.
It asked, if God existed long before creation, why did God wait to create? This idea bothered people who answered, God created other cultures before the present one and destroyed them. As with all other suppositions, this is pure speculation. We just do not know, and never will.

Thank you for sharing the link. I enjoyed it.
Vj ~ It is not for entertainment, it is there for deep contemplation guided by reasoning.

We just do not know, and never will.
Vj ~ You've just defined an idiot - one who doesn't know and never want to know.

As with all other suppositions, this is pure speculation. It is also pure nonsense.

this is pure speculation.
Vj ~ Yes, it is what fools usually do.

Still speculation without evidence. No. You're the fool who relies on blind faith.

You're the fool who relies on blind faith.
Vj ~ How is a faith in harmony with reasoning, science and in conformity with natural laws blind?

REASONING:
"Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Albert Einstein

SCIENCE:
"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein

NATURAL LAWS:
"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

I'm quite sure you're the idiot here!
"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change." Confucius

You frequently quote natural law without making a connection to textual proof. It is simply not explicit in the text. Thus, you rely on blind faith.

You frequently quote natural law without making a connection to textual proof.
Vj ~ Take it from me dumb-a-s-s, you don't need proof, you need a brain that works, a functional intellect.

Thus, you rely on blind faith.
Vj ~ Blind faith belongs to those with wrong knowledge and those without a source knowledge.