Help me believe in god

Why not just believe in your self?

Sure, it not as easy as you'd think, and you'd end up questioning a lot of things, but that's life. Wouldn't that be the same result as believing in god, although through a different method.

You'll hear Atheist complain and moan much like the ones they complain about, but they don't know what they want to believe in, do they? Instead, they would like to believe in something, however it seems to far fetched for them to do at times. Not so much just religion or tradition, but also the whole believe in the after life thing.

I guess expectations will lead to failure, for you never know if there is life after death, till your there yourself(hopefully not for a long time).

Personally, I prefer my Gods ever wrathful.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You said youll go, but that remains to be seen.

Is your crusade going well in your mind? What do you hope to accomplish with it other than delving further into bitterness and division?

Your attempts to convert with a zealous passion are oddly ironic..

Here's the best argument for "God" that I can come up with, allowing for the fact that the thing is essentially undefinable and incomprehensible to begin with.

* The universe doesn't exist without someone or something observing it. That thing is what we call "life," the chemicals that managed to form themselves into something that reproduces and has a point of view.
* By its nature, life struggles to survive, reproduce, and incorporate all matter/energy into its living matrix.
* As time passes, more of the universe is absorbed and incorporated into living things, and eventually the entirety of the universe will be "eaten."
* Once the universe is fully consumed, the living entity will encompass all things and times, and will observe and reflect back on itself to "bootstrap" itself into existence by "being" and manifesting life at the beginning of the universe.
* A living, conscious creator entity encompassing all of space and time is about as close to the definition of God as you're going to get and still have it kind of make sense.

Of course, this brand of God is in no way interested in you personally, except as an infinitesimal portion of the holographic matrix of the universe. It doesn't love you, or listen to your prayers, or take care of your Grandpa in Heaven, and could care less if you score a touchdown. The egomaniacs who want this kind of God are going to be disappointed.

DISRAELI
reply to post by James1982

 

Think of Biblical "faith" as an act of trust.
It is hard to change your opinion about what is or is not true, but trusting someone is a decision which can be made by conscious choice.
That is why it matters.

"Belief" is your opinion about whether a bridge will carry your weight.
"Faith" is walking out across the bridge anyway.
Take that as the starting point and you will be carried along from there.
That was my experience, as a former atheist.

Thanks for the post, It makes a lot of sense. So in your opinion, would you say that many people don't really believe that god exists, they simply trust that he does? But who is this trust being placed in? A church leader, society as a whole? (as in, religion is popular, therefore I trust god is real)

From a religion standpoint, what do you think most religious leaders would say about not believing in god, but trusting that there is, so you act accordingly? It's very important that you mention trust is a choice, where as belief is not, so that makes much more sense on how someone would be able to "find god"

Serdgiam
reply to post by James1982

 

These kind of thought exercises can be really interesting, and a lot of fun.

Which is why I asked:

What do you define God to be? And, currently, why do you feel those parameters are not met?

Are you looking to match a specific cultural "God" to your/our current understanding? Or are you trying to find the experience they are speaking about for yourself?

Thanks for agreeing!

Sorry for not seeing your question before, I'd define the word god in the way it's currently understood by whatever society a person belongs to. In the western world, god is pretty universally understood to mean the big, all powerful man in the sky who created the universe and judges all our actions, with a few variations on how he prefers you live your life. When I use the word god that's basically what I mean. It doesn't really matter if it's the Christian god, allah, or the Jewish god, they all pretty much match that broad description.

I don't believe such a god exists, partly because I've yet to see anything convincing me of it, and partly because the logic behind the existence of such a god seems incredibly flawed to me.

Monotheism in general is fairly new when you consider the whole of human history (known and unknown) and the more ancient concept of multiple, more "humanized" or "real" lesser gods makes more sense to me.

While I don't see anything to convince me of the existence of such lesser gods either, they don't fail the logic test as badly. The idea that life, in its infinite ways of expression, could come up with some entities that could be construed or interpreted as lesser gods by other entities makes more sense than a single entity that created the entire universe.

I'm not talking about the stereotypical ancient aliens theory, more that life is far more complex and grand than we could ever imagine, and life could be expressed in ways we could only understand as gods, perhaps something that exists in a non physical form, that sort of thing.

See I COULD believe in that. But I just cannot see myself ever believing in the monotheistic religions of today, or their gods.

Now, if we want to redefine the word god, we could include some sort of a universal mind that exists, which we are all a part of, every creature in the universe belongs to, sort of like "the force" from starwars. That I could believe, but that's not how western religions define god.

I'm still really liking the idea brought up that many people don't actually believe in god, they just trust that it's true. That would explain quite a bit.

ketsuko
reply to post by James1982

 

I look at it this way: If you are convinced that there is no God, then you will likely never be convinced by anyone outside yourself that one exists.

Belief and disbelief are both acts of complete faith. As such, my faith, no matter how strong it is, will not be sufficient to counter your faith unless your faith is weak or flagging and getting ready to shift anyhow.

Faith doesn't need proof, only strength of your conviction. If God himself, any god, were to sit down next to you and do miraculous backflips in an attempt to prove himself to you it would only work if you were open to being convinced. If you were convinced He doesn't exist, then no matter what he did, it wouldn't be enough.

Do you want to know why I believe God exists? OK

Every tiny variable in the universe that had to be mathematically exactly right in order for things to develop as they did. Scientists know they were more likely to settle at other values but they didn't. To me, that's a miracle.

Tectonic activity and the moon being the way they are and working the way they do to effect things on Earth. We wouldn't be here without them. That's a miracle.

Jupiter being what it is and where it is in relation to the Earth? That's a miracle.

As we look around the universe and discover new planets and new solar systems, we are beginning to understand just how rare our circumstances are. It's truly miraculous.

I could go on and look at other areas, but all these things just point back to God for me. To others, they merely make us lucky. It all depends on where our personal faith brings us in the end. For you, I guess we're just lucky

But that's just it, I'm not convinced there isn't a god, I'm just even less convinced that there is. I believe the sun exists in the way we are told because I can see it every day, and it operates within the confines it should assuming it exists in the manner we are told.

I believe New York exists because I have family that lives there, many people have seen it, talked about it, etc. I've never been there, and I don't know for a fact it actually exists, but I believe it does. Now another poster brought up the idea of trusting that god exists, instead of believing, but I guess belief comes after trust. I trust my family to not lie to me about a non-existent city, therefore I believe it exists. I trust "the world" enough that there isn't some astronomically complex conspiracy to make people believe a fake city actually exists, so I believe it exists.

As far as your reasons for believing in god, as you probably suspect those don't work for me. I guess it just depends how you view it. I view it as we exist in the manner we exist today because of the way the universe happened to form. The universe wasn't formed for the purpose of coming up with us. The universe formed, and the types of life that could exist in that configuration spring up.

Kind of similar to a family line. Think of yourself. Now, to create you, you needed two parents, who each needed two parents, who each needed two parents. For tens of thousands of years people became couples and had children that would have children, ending up with you today. What are the odds that every single one of those people would mate in the exact proper way, at the exact proper time, for thousands of years, in order to come up with you?

That might make you feel special, that you beat the odds, having all those thousands of people mate in order to produce you, except for the fact that every human ever alive is just as unlikely to exist, yet we all do. All your ancestors didn't start reproducing with the goal of making a Ketsuko in a few thousand years. In the same way (I believe) particles in the universe didn't order themselves with any care for you or me. You exist in the way you do as a side effect of your ancestors choices, not a goal of your ancestors choices. In the same way the universe exists as it does today as a side effect of what happened before, not as a goal of what happened before.

Another example would be dropping a bowl of soup. It's going to break and splatter all over the place, in a completely random, incredibly unlikely pattern. Now, after spilling this soup, the soup might say "look how complex and intricate I am, how bits of me are flung all over the walls, it's obvious that human dropped the bowl of soup on purpose in order to create such a beautifully complex pattern, because the way I'm splattered couldn't happen by chance" Well, the soup might be right in some way, as you could re-spill the soup millions of times and are unlikely to ever match that same pattern again.

Now a soup spiller might be seen as a very powerful person, that they are able to spill soup in a manner which creates these impossible shapes, except for the fact that every single time anyone spills soup it's always going to create an equally unlikely pattern, in the same way that it's unlikely for you or me to exist, because in order for us to be here, all our ancestors had to match up perfectly to come up with us. Basically, having an end-product doesn't imply any desire or design to come up with an end product, in my belief.

You are an end product of tens of thousands of years of human reproduction, that doesn't imply said reproduction took place with the goal of creating you specifically, but it ended up doing it anyway.

Sorry for getting side tracked, and just to be clear I wasn't trying to argue against your views, simply stating mine for clarity.

reply to post by James1982


So that we better understand each other, and you dont feel "deceived;"

With using labels, I am a "believer" in a monotheistic presence. Not so much in the vein in pantheism (i.e. "The Force"), but more panentheism. Where, it is not only "The Force," but also includes what "The Force" flows through. This would be a prerequisite to fulfill the parameters that others have set forth for what they try to explain through culturally specific means. Many are only in the discussions to tear others ideas down, as I am sure you have noticed in any thread like this.

I think all attempts at this are essentially figuring out what is going on here. So, there are many different methods. I personally subscribe to the scientific method (the core of it) as being the current "best" way to explore the world around us and within us.

So, at one point, I decided I would explain and explore these things for myself using the core ideas of many cultural views. I think it was erroneous, at least for myself, to use how others looked at it as anything more than a starting point. It was too easy to pick apart, because I had never actually explored it for myself. And, I think this attitude is pervasive to most discussions of this type. Most have explored how others explain it through their perspective, and throw out the entire concept because a single persons, or multiple persons, perspectives are flawed and limited.

I think the search for such things needs to be carried out for ourselves, but most are more interested in tearing down each other than looking within. I was there, once.

When you say it fails your logic test, what specific parameters are you using to test? It might be a tough questions, as AfterInfinity insinuated, so Ill relay what I did:

I broke it down to the "basic" model of what a system/being of "God" are reported to be, and threw away the vast amount bias confirmation that exists throughout the spectrum that explores the topic. I figured those to be "Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent." Even at this point, I understood that every single person alive has worked with the exact same data set (the world/universe around us), but had interpreted it through different inevitable cultural, societal, and individual biases.

My intent was to show that such a thing couldnt possibly exist, but I learned something else entirely. I think the major fault was trying to see it through others eyes, which almost NEVER lined up with my own.

In the end though, I felt that the teaching that Jesus gave of "Love God, and Love one another" was pretty much the culmination of it all. That was pretty much a full circle/cycle for my experience. If there is heaven/hell, if there isnt, if there is a "God/s," if there isnt, if there is karma, if there isnt... Did any of that truly matter to how I decided to carry out my life? The interesting part is that it didnt. When it DOES control how one lives their life though, that is when one is shackled into doing nothing other than accepting or denying others perspective on a matter that is far beyond all of us. To even get a glimpse, I needed to explore it myself. And even more importantly, for me, I needed to come up with the way I wanted to live my life that I could be happy with regardless of any individual or collective ideology.

So, I separated out "how to live" from whether or not a God/s exists, then I started my journey. Basically, I sorted myself out then went on to explore more universal topics.

When I pursued the experience that others spoke of, rather than the words they used to relay it, I started to make better progress.

In the end, I came up with some rather interesting things that completely negated my current perspective. Not the most comfortable situation, but its one we all face in some regard.

I came to the conclusion that the parameters of "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent," most certainly exists, and would supercede (in my perspective) any individual God that does *not* have those as its attributes. Ironically, this would also include whatever "God/s" I had conjured in my mind, as those are inherently limited to the human experience. And yet, the very thought I had in my mind was inevitably a part of something that held the above parameters. The next was to understand the distinction between the "whole" and a "part of the whole." This was something that seemed to rarely come up in ANY discussion on the topic, but it leads to a completely different arena (imo, of course) than what this thread is about.

I know thats a lot of typing, but I am very aware that my words do not convey the totality of whatever subject I am speaking. There really isnt a way around this for any of us, but by telling an overall experience (rather than thinking the terms we use to define it are universally interpreted in the same way).

All that rambling done So, what logical process(es) have you used to determine that "X" does not exist? I would love to walk through them with you! Not in an attempt to convert (you have to find your own way), but to learn more about how another sees this universe...

cavtrooper7
What a pity some require a religion for faith.
Find what YOU believe before you approach any church. What you feel.
Jesus will gladly accept all who ask but you should WANT to as well.

I don't require religion for faith.

However, religion and the ideas that go along with it have a huge impact on humanity whether I buy into them or not, and as a human, I'm very interested in how my fellow humans think on the subject.

James1982

I believe New York exists because I have family that lives there, many people have seen it, talked about it, etc. I've never been there, and I don't know for a fact it actually exists, but I believe it does.

There is only one way you will ever truly know for sure. Its not taxes, so that only leaves the other certainty in life... Death.

reply to post by James1982


I see a perfect truth all thru what I believe.
I make absolute sense of this nightmarish world
only thru that truth. I'm solid and undisturbed
in what I believe after four years of debate
with intelligent opponents from day one.
But I can't make you see what I see or feel
what I feel. It's up to everyone of us to not find
our own truth. But to find the one truth,
Thee Truth that all will come to know.

It's up to you.

Serdgiam
reply to post by James1982

 

So that we better understand each other, and you dont feel "deceived;"

Thank you for your wonderful post, truly, I think I know what you are trying to convey. It seems a huge limiting factor here is language, as many concepts, ideas, and feelings are just too complex to be stuffed into spoken or written word. We can put together sentences hoping the output in the readers mind matches the input, but we all know how that goes It just makes it harder to discuss these things when we can't.... actually discuss them if you know what I mean. Some sort of direct brain to brain communication would likely allow much greater progress on subjects like this.

As far as the logic I'm using, I'd be happy to share.

God, in the way I defined in a previous post, has two possible options:

A. God always existed, thus proving the concept of infinity/eternity.
B. At one time god didn't exist, but then came into existence

Option A, as far as I'm aware, is the prevailing idea held by believers. The way I see it, if it's possible for god to have always existed, then there is no requirement for creation/starting points, so the universe and life in general equally could have simply always existed, with no need for creation.

Option B, if there was a time god didn't exist, that implies creation, either creation OF god, or the natural, random, "springing to life" of god himself. And if god could spring to life from nothingness, anything could spring forth from nothingness. If god was created, then he isn't the god we are lead to believe.

That's just a very basic, and flawed (like any sort of logic when trying to discuss things we cannot fathom) example about the very basic idea of his existence.

There is also the old one about god creating a stone too heavy for him to life. Either he is unable to create such a stone (a failure) or creates the stone which he cannot lift (another failure) so he cannot be all powerful, all knowing, etc.

The ones which are more religion specific:

The whole concept of sending your son to die in order to save humans just doesn't make any actual logical sense. If god is all powerful, what is the point of making a flesh and blood son to die, when you could just snap your fingers and offer humanity everything equal to the death of Jesus. It's as if god is reading some sort of troubleshooting manual for his humanity toy set he just bought.

"How to save your own creation which you have ultimate power over anyway, -page 3"

"Pg 3: Create son, impregnate human woman with said son, have fellow humans torture and murder him. This erases the sins of humanity, and grants your Paladin two additional levels"

God: "huh? Oh well...How about.. Jesus.... I like that name"

It makes no sense to me, and additionally seems like a cruel game or joke. Imbue man with evil desires and abilities, give him free will so he'll do bad things, then punish him when he does" Reminds of of parents who leave the liquor cabinet unlocked just so they can beat their kids when they steal some.

A strong reason for my lack of belief in god is simply the lack of need for such a thing to exist. Modern science has given factual reasons and explanations for things previously thought to be works of god, the devil, etc. Humans are curious and constantly figuring out how things work, over time we are able to explain more and more about the world around us, I see no reason to believe if allowed to continue any and everything around us could be explained in scientific means, by someone. I doubt the human mind's ability to EVER be able to actually comprehend such advanced sciences, however.

So in my mind it all boils down to: God isn't a requirement for the world to exist, I've seen nothing that leaves god as its only possible explanation, and the idea of an all powerful god that meddles in the lives of humans just doesn't make logical sense to me.

OneManArmy

James1982

I believe New York exists because I have family that lives there, many people have seen it, talked about it, etc. I've never been there, and I don't know for a fact it actually exists, but I believe it does.

There is only one way you will ever truly know for sure. Its not taxes, so that only leaves the other certainty in life... Death.

Indeed, which is why I'm not afraid of death, I'm simply afraid of the pain it takes to get there

It looks like we are on the same page in a lot of regards. Both of us just having a discussion on how we see this place around us and within us. And hey, maybe we will learn something from the exchange!

James1982
Option A, as far as I'm aware, is the prevailing idea held by believers. The way I see it, if it's possible for god to have always existed, then there is no requirement for creation/starting points, so the universe and life in general equally could have simply always existed, with no need for creation.

This is the concept I identify with. However, I do not define the universe itself to be "all that exists." So, in this way, the start of time as we know it (the beginning of the universe) took place in a field where relativistic time does not exist. I think we get a glimpse of this when looking at quantum interactions. How can something be in two places at once? It seems one possibility is that without the restraints of time, it is quite "easily" done.

I view the universe as an air bubble inside of water. Where, essentially, energy goes through it and becomes refracted/reflected/fractaled out over time. I view the creation of the universe much in the same way as a cavitation bubble inside of water. The medium is not H2O, obviously, but a medium of what we identify as space-time. (We can definitely go into this more, but I feel its a bit off topic and I do not wish to bring your thread in directions you dont want it to go).

Option B, if there was a time god didn't exist, that implies creation, either creation OF god, or the natural, random, "springing to life" of god himself. And if god could spring to life from nothingness, anything could spring forth from nothingness. If god was created, then he isn't the god we are lead to believe.

I think that for something to be "eternal," there *can not* be a point of creation as that strictly implies being restricted by time. If something is an "omni-being," then by principle it can not be a part of something, but the sum total of all things. Meaning, time would be a construct contained within a "God," rather than the other way around. If its the other way around, then time itself would then take the place of an "omni-being." But, I do believe time is just a product of duality, and is contained within something larger than itself to give it context in the first place.

There is also the old one about god creating a stone too heavy for him to life. Either he is unable to create such a stone (a failure) or creates the stone which he cannot lift (another failure) so he cannot be all powerful, all knowing, etc.

I think that paradoxes such as these point more to our limited understanding than as some sort of foundation to explain anything away. However, I like it much more than most simply because it doesnt blame the decisions of mankind on something else! Perhaps the answer is that it *is* possible, however, the object would have to be the size of 1x10^999999999999999999999... of our universe, making it mechanically impossible to do within any given material world.

I will pass over some of the religious stuff, mainly because of what I said earlier in understanding these things for ourselves rather than a book, or a church, synagogue, mosque, etc.

A strong reason for my lack of belief in god is simply the lack of need for such a thing to exist. Modern science has given factual reasons and explanations for things previously thought to be works of god, the devil, etc. Humans are curious and constantly figuring out how things work, over time we are able to explain more and more about the world around us, I see no reason to believe if allowed to continue any and everything around us could be explained in scientific means, by someone. I doubt the human mind's ability to EVER be able to actually comprehend such advanced sciences, however.

I fully agree that we might eventually be able to accurately reproduce the patterns that exist in our universe. But, to my mind, this has nothing to do with the existence (or lack there-of) of "God." Being able to explain the patterns that make up this place has no relevance to whether or not it was created, much less whether or not a "God" exists. The universe itself could have been created by a conscious entity, but I do not feel this explicitly meets the demands of an "omni-being," in that it would be more pantheistic rather than panentheistic.

We will definitely never be able to comprehend the full scale of what is happening, however. Since, each mind that attempts to do so is merely a fraction of all that goes on. Whatever that mind attempts to conceive as the "totality of all that is," is inevitably just a part of what it attempts to reproduce.

So in my mind it all boils down to: God isn't a requirement for the world to exist, I've seen nothing that leaves god as its only possible explanation

I agree fully. Unless an "omni-being" does exist, then it would be a requirement for any of it to have happened in the first place. Being able to explain the patterns doesnt seem to do anything other than allow us to better understand the mechanisms in place. I do not see how being able to reflect and understand the universe nullifies the concept of "God."

I think that it comes from the initial concept of deities becoming the explanation for what happens when we cant figure it out. But, I am not convinced that it brings to light anything other than our own limitations. In other words, being able to explain *everything* does not determine that a "God" does not exist, and likewise, not being able to explain *anything* whatsoever does not determine that a "God" must exist.

James1982

OneManArmy

James1982

I believe New York exists because I have family that lives there, many people have seen it, talked about it, etc. I've never been there, and I don't know for a fact it actually exists, but I believe it does.

There is only one way you will ever truly know for sure. Its not taxes, so that only leaves the other certainty in life... Death.

Indeed, which is why I'm not afraid of death, I'm simply afraid of the pain it takes to get there

Funnily enough its the pain you face getting there that makes you a better person when you do.
Even evil serves a good purpose, without seeing the wrong way, how do we learn the right way?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


| didn't type that it was. | typed to look "within". The Tao is A path, A Way, it may not be the path/way of the author. That was the very first verse, meaning-listening to anyOne else, and getting "their end of "it" won't be "it" Kinda makes 'going to Church™ a non-event, because | AM the "Church" so why would | go to a Church™ God is FREE. If One pay$ for "it" that won't be "it"

The point was, the journey of a 1,000 miles begins w/a single step, oh wait, that is the Tao again... hahahaha

My attempt was to clear it for You, but |'m afraid | may have further muddied the waters? Each has a Path/Way it isn't My job to nudge, just hint.

namaste

Psalm 46:10, Be still, and know that I am God:...

Think about that and try it, within as well as outwardly.

reply to post by James1982


I recommend deep spirituality, not a religion specifically. Religion CAN lead you there, though many have succumb to a false sense of spirituality. Its up to you.

Most though.

That said, it is in every human being to know a little more than instinct....to feel a little more than base emotions of want and satisfaction...

where those things lead you depends on the person.

Some will settle to simply never know, or refuse to entertain the idea they are not in control of things and "in the know" about reality as much as they thought. They too are as stagnant as a repressed religion keeping them from their intrinsic spirituality.

God....well, if you are open to the idea that it is a concept that falls short of being adequately explained when we use our limited language, or our basis of comparison for it....then just dive in.

I would say that GOD is the sum of our spirituality, our nature, our minds, our souls, our totality as a species, our , totality as sentient beings and our totality as creation....

IT is all those things.

THEN you must define it. That is God experiencing himself through us.

And that is the beauty of spirituality.

You are your own priest, your own church and your own mind is the maxim of your truth. When it grows then your truth must as well. If it falls short of the mind that considers them, then your truth must grow...

Be ready to start from scratch many times, to lose faith, to be filled with what the christians call the holy spirit, to be filled with fear as you slowly turn dark inside when that power turns you....then when you lose it all and are nothing, expect to almost give up on life....when you, out of the great comedy of life, turn to truer intentions will be given the keys to the universe in all its mysteries....then when that becomes common place, you take it all for granted.....Then you will learn from more loss and pain that what is to be most appreciated is the little things, and then when you see them and all the beautiful detail of the universe ....the deep inside you is risen and you are reborn....


or something like that.....

Just begin, and see if you dont want to stop....if you can get back up after falling and if giving up is not an option for you....

then you will know your spirituality...your spirit will be revealed to you...

that is as close as you will know God as a mortal...

its not too shabby though all things considered.

Good journey.....

Hold it down.

Maybe this can help....

reply to post by James1982


It's perfectly reasonable for you to address a query like this:

"God, if you are there, please make yourself real to me in ways that make sense to me; are meaningful to me--that I can latch onto in a lasting, constructive way. I realize that if you exist, you likely tend to do things in your way and timing. I just want to be able to truly detect your message and make lasting use of it without waiting forever. Sincerely, me."

He tends to answer sincere queries.

He has declared that those who earnestly persistently SEEK HIM,

WILL find Him.

Otherwise, in answer to your thread issue . . .

imho, dramatic miraculous life changing events tend to alter beliefs.

However, I don't think it's a reliable way to truth. No one is guaranteed a dramatic miraculous life changing event . . . e.g. surviving a certain death car accident etc.

Other than that . . . folks in dire circumstances tend to be more open to changing their cosmology in a search for hope.

Cults tend to take advantage of that phenomena.

It's been said that

we can live for so many seconds without oxygen.
. . . so many days without water . . .
. . . so many days/weeks without food . . .
. . . not at all without hope.

I started to believe in God after studying Buddhism, Greek Philosophy like Plotinus and Boethius, and Bhagavad Gita and Autobiography of a Yogi. I was raised Catholic but it was always an obligation rather than a choice. I was agnostic until I staryed meditating. Now I believe in Self/Soul but I can also view it as God, but for the most part I don't believe in mainstream christianity, even though I appreciate the Gospels as a moral story, I just can't believe it literally. Even if some people have spiritual powers to walk on water, it's secondary to a mind at peace.