Perhaps there's no answer to be found

I've done a few hours of online research into controversial topics, such as the existence of God and the afterlife, the safeness and effectiveness of vaccines, if red meat increases risk of colon cancer and other health problems, etc. But, all I see is ongoing controversy and no answer. So, I can't find the answer to any controversial topic, which means, for example, I don't know how likely vaccines are very beneficial or very harmful.

Pro vaccine and anti vaccine books on amazon present studies and claimed evidence in favor of vaccines being very beneficial or harmful. But, since these books are controversial, I don't know the answer. I might know the answer to controversial topics, such as the topic of vaccines, if I continue doing research. But, I've given up on searching for the answer because of 4 reasons:

1.) I don't have the passion to continuously search for an answer that I might or might never find. I never had this passion/interest and I might never have it. I only have the passion to do a few hours of research and that's it. 2.) There's a lot of research I'm unable to comprehend due to my lack of intelligence and inability to comprehend a lot of things in general.

3.) Note: What I'm going to explain will lead up to the 3rd reason being revealed: There are things we know are true. For example, we know thunder isn't caused by Thor, the flu is caused by a virus, living a lifestyle of smoking a lot, eating a lot of junk food, not getting enough sleep, etc. increases your risk of health problems, extremely high or low temperatures are life-threatening, etc.

Since we know these things are true, that's why they don't have ongoing controversy. But, what about topics that have ongoing controversy, such as the topics I've mentioned in the beginning? It could be the case nobody knows the answer and people just think they know. I don't know if that's the case or not. But, knowing it could be the case renders me giving up on searching for the answer to any controversial topic.

4.) Note: What I'm going to explain will lead up to the 4th reason being revealed: When it comes to controversial topics, there are experts in their specific fields. For example, there are paranormal experts (those who've done years of research regarding the claim of the paranormal), and there are professional skeptics (those who've done years of research regarding the natural world and scientific materialism, which is the idea that consciousness is nothing more than brain function, aka: "Once the brain dies, the mind goes with it.").

Since they're experts, that means they're much more intelligent than me, and some of them debate the paranormal and scientific materialism. So, in order for me to know whether the paranormal or scientific materialism is likely to be true or not (providing it can be known), then I might have to become highly intelligent like those experts. But, I might be incapable of ever achieving such intelligence.

Knowing this possible incapability renders me giving up on searching for the answer to the controversial topic of the paranormal, as well as any other controversial topic. Not to mention, I don't have the passion for becoming an expert on any subject. Now that I've discussed these 4 reasons, I'm going to continue discussing my ignorance. Since I don't know whether God is likely to exist or not, that means I'm not a theist or atheist.

But, I'm not an agnostic either because agnostics claim nobody knows if God is likely to exist or not. Since I consider the possibility one can know if he/she does enough research (perhaps years of research), and the possibility that nobody knows and can never know, then I'm not an agnostic. Since I'm not a theist, atheist, or agnostic, then what am I? I'd simply call myself "ignorant."

Christians would tell me my ignorance is inexcusable because the bible says God has given us signs that prove His existence. But, since claimed signs from God are controversial, then I don't know if they're signs or not. For example, it's controversial as to whether the planetary alignment on 9/23/2017 is the Revelation 12 sign (a sign from God), which means I don't know if it's a sign or not.

Some Christians claim it's a sign and that it's a 7 year warning that points to WW3 or the rapture and the tribulation occurring this year (2024). Again, I don't know if it is or not. As you can see, any claimed evidence of God's existence won't convince me, even if it seems quite convincing. There's a lot of claimed evidence for various claims that seems quite convincing to an ignorant person, such as myself.

But, I don't know if it's evidence or not because it's controversial. So, if anything controversial seems convincing to me, I won't be convinced of it. For example, this website (www.cross2victory.com) presents claimed signs and prophecies that make it seem quite convincing to me that there's going to be WW3 (nuclear war) this year.

But, there were such seemingly convincing predictions in the past of world war and worldwide catastrophies occurring on specific dates that didn't occur. So, there might be no WW3 this year or there might be. As you can see, I can't be convinced of apocalyptic claims or anything else besides facts, such as the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th U.S. president, the fact we need air and water to survive, the fact that thunder isn't caused by Thor, etc.

That's why someone who's pro or anti vaccine won't convince me that vaccines are very beneficial or harmful by presenting a numerous amount of seemingly convincing, claimed evidence to me. But, even though I don't know the safeness and effectiveness of vaccines, I still have to decide whether to get vaccinated or not. I've decided not to, based upon the fact that few people in this world are trustworthy.

So, those who've created vaccines might be untrustworthy, which means vaccines might be very harmful (I don't know, though). Now, since I'm not convinced vaccines are beneficial or harmful, and since I'm not convinced of any other controversial topic, then what about my philosophy, which is controversial? Well, I'm not convinced of it, even though I said I was.

The only reason why I said I was convinced of it and that I was certain it'll never change is because living by any other philosophy has never worked for me, and I wanted to say something that would let readers know I'm closed off from other philosophies (that I reject them) because they don't work for me. For example, living by a philosophy that advocates embracing our unpleasant emotions didn't work for me during my moments of emotional displeasure.

In other words, my life of emotional displeasure was still unacceptable, despite living by that philosophy. That's why I said I'm convinced of my philosophy and that I'm certain it'll never change. Saying so was my way of rejecting that philosophy that didn't work for me. Honestly, I don't know if any other philosophy will ever work for me because a life of emotional pleasure has always been the only life that works for me. So, I've given up on other philosophies.