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, and if the bible teaches Annihilationism (the idea that unsaved souls are annihilated), Eternal Torment (the idea that unsaved souls suffer eternal torment in hell), or Universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved).
But, all I see is ongoing controversy and no answer. So, I can't find the answer (the truth) 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 what the authors claim to be evidence for 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 I don't have the passion (emotional drive) to continuously search for an answer that I might or might never find.
The amount of searching I had a passion for doing was just a few hours and that's it. Here are 4 reasons why I don't have the passion for (why I'm apathetic towards) continuously searching for the answer: 1.) 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.
This inability prevents me from finding the answer. 2.) I've never been the type of person who's passionate about doing much research, whether it's research into controversial or uncontroversial topics. I've never had this passion/interest and I might never have it. That's why I'm a very ignorant person and might always remain ignorant.
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, a lifestyle of smoking a lot, eating a lot of junk food, not getting enough sleep, etc. increases one's risk of health problems, extremely high or low temperatures are life-threatening, etc.
Since we know these things are true, that's why there's no ongoing controversy about them. 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 to these topics and people just think they know. In other words, it could be the case the truth can't be known regarding these topics.
I don't know if that's the case or not. But, since it could be the case, I'm rendered without the passion to continuously search 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 scientific materialism or the existence of the paranormal is likely 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 without the passion to continuously search 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 in 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 because a theist is convinced God exists, and an atheist is convinced He doesn't exist. But, I'm not an agnostic either because an agnostic is convinced 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." Some Christians would tell me:
"God has implanted the divine knowledge (the divine conviction/realization) of His existence within human beings. So, you already know He exists and you're denying it." But, if I know something, there's no way I can deny it. For example, since I know there are 4 seasons and 24 hours in a day, I can't deny it. So, I obviously don't know if God exists or not.
Christians would tell me I should know God exists because the bible says He has given us signs that prove His existence (Romans 1: 20-32 KJV). But, since what Christians claim to be 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 arrangement 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. Another example would be the American total solar eclipse on 4/8/2024. It's controversial as to whether this eclipse is a sign from God that the rapture and tribulation will soon occur and that America will soon face God's wrath (divine punishment).
That means I don't know if it's a sign or not, which means I'm not convinced. As you can see, anything Christians claim to be 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, at first glance, 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 at first glance, I won't be convinced of it. For example, this website (www.cross2victory.com) presents controversial material, such as claimed signs, that made it seem convincing to me, at first glance, 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 catastrophic events 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 food, 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 what he/she claims to be proof, such as a numerous amount of seemingly convincing, claimed evidence. 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). I realize some people have gotten vaccinated for years without adverse effects.
But, providing vaccines are harmful, some people's bodies are able to negate the harm of vaccines much better than other bodies, which would be why some people report no adverse effects, while others do. But, as I said, I don't know if vaccines are harmful or not.
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 of good, bad, and emotions, 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 that 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 and rendered me suicidal, 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. Also, living by a philosophy that advocates reason alone didn't work for me either because it seems my thoughts alone can't make anyone or anything matter to me.
For example, when I judged things as good (as mattering) during moments where I was emotionally displeased and absent of emotional pleasure, said judgments seemed hollow (that is, it seemed like they made nothing good [matter] in my eyes). That means these judgments were ineffective.
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. For me, personally, a life of emotional pleasure is always better than a life of emotional displeasure or no emotions, and a life of no emotions is always better for me than a life of emotional displeasure.
Also, any pleasant emotions of mine that are more profound and more intense are always better for me, and any unpleasant emotions of mine that are more profound and more intense are always worse for me. That means the best, everlasting bliss would always be the best thing for me, personally, because it's pleasant emotions that are both everlasting and the most profound and intense in the world.
The best bliss can be achieved through the use of powerful drugs. But, this bliss won't be everlasting. The best, everlasting bliss can only be achieved by living in heaven (the afterlife), providing heaven even exists, and by future technology, providing such technology will ever be invented. As for the worst, everlasting unhappiness, it would always be the worst thing for me and can only be achieved by living in hell (the afterlife) and future technology.
As you can see, since a life of emotional pleasure (especially very profound, very intense emotional pleasure) is always better for me than a life of emotional displeasure or no emotions, that's why other philosophies don't work for me because they advocate embracing our unpleasant emotions or ignoring our pleasant and unpleasant emotions, or emotionlessness, and focusing on living by reason.
Since other philosophies don't work for me, I've given up on them. To conclude this document, I want to say one last thing regarding pleasant emotions, which involves Christianity. Christians would tell me that, if I have Jesus (which I don't), then I'll no longer need my pleasant emotions because having a personal relationship with Jesus is an experience that's far better than any pleasant emotional experience.
Some Christians say there are 2 requirements for salvation (having a personal relationship with Jesus): 1.) Being convinced that Jesus exists and was crucified for our sins, whether that conviction is from doing research or from blind faith. 2.) Repenting of sin. Well, I obviously don't meet requirement #1 because I don't know the answer to controversial topics, such as Jesus' existence and his crucifixion for our sins.
But, some Christians say there's only one requirement for salvation, which would be repentance. These Christians claim that not only would repentance earn us salvation, but would earn us the divine knowledge (the divine conviction/realization) of Jesus' existence, his crucifixion for our sins, and the fate of unsaved souls (if that fate is eternal torment, annihilation, or Universalism).
These Christians claim the Holy Spirit bestows this conviction upon those who repent. These Christians base this claim upon a specific verse (John 7: 17-18 KJV, which is presented and explained in this article):
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/ ... 0authority.
So, that means I might be able to obtain salvation (which includes the divine conviction) through repentance alone. But, I'm not going to repent. Why? Well, it's not because I'm a stubbornly rebellious individual who opposes repentance. I'm not such an individual and I don't think I'll ever be. There's only one reason why I'm unwilling to repent and I'm now going to explain what it is:
Let's pretend repentance is the only requirement for salvation. I'm unwilling to repent because I don't have the conviction of Jesus' existence, his crucifixion for our sins, and Eternal Torment or Annihilationism, whether that conviction is from doing research, from blind faith, or is the divine conviction (a conviction directly from the Holy Spirit).
Having this conviction would compel me to repent to avoid eternal torment or annihilation. Since I don't have it, then I'm apathetic towards repentance because I'm not compelled to repent. That begs the question: "It says in the bible that God wants everyone to be saved.
So, if the fate of unsaved souls is eternal torment or annihilation, then why didn't God compel me and others to repent by having the Holy Spirit bestow the divine conviction upon us in the first place? Why is repentance required to obtain this conviction?" Also, there are 4 circumstances that strengthen my unwillingness to repent: 1.) There are certain people who repent for a long time (some repent for years).
But, their repentance is futile because they never acquire the transformative experience that's far better than any emotional pleasure, which would be the experience of having a personal relationship with Jesus (aka, "salvation"). Since they never acquire it, that also means they never receive the divine conviction. Thus, they give up on trying to obtain salvation and the divine conviction.
That means, if I repent, then my repentance might also be futile. So, I'm not going to repent because it might just be a waste of time and effort. I realize there are those who repent and claim they've obtained salvation and the divine conviction. But, they might be delusional. 2.) It could be the case there are 2 requirements for salvation instead of 1, as I've mentioned earlier.
If that's the case, then it would be pointless if I repent because I don't meet requirement #1. But, I don't think I'll ever meet requirement #1 because I'm unable and unwilling to find the answer to controversial topics, such as Jesus' existence and his crucifixion for our sins. By the way, I did a prayer in an attempt to meet requirement #1 (providing there are 2 requirements), which was:
"God, if you exist, reveal the truth of Jesus' existence and his crucifixion to me in a way that will convince me." But, this prayer didn't work. 3.) It could be the case the natural world is the only world. In other words, God, Jesus, spirits, heaven, and hell might not exist. That means repentance might be a waste of time and effort.
4.) Repentance requires me to do the following because not doing said things would be sinful, according to Christianity: I'd have to obey the 10 Commandments, preach the gospel daily to people in the community, not watch certain tv shows and not listen to certain songs because God dislikes them, not wear certain clothes, not allow my mom to sin, etc.
Doing these things would anger my mom because she wouldn't want me resting on the Sabbath because she needs me to do work for her, she wouldn't want me pestering people in the community by preaching the gospel to them, she wouldn't want me telling her to repent, etc. Even if, let's pretend, my mom wouldn't get angry, I'd still be unwilling to do those things.
For example, I wouldn't want to anger and annoy others by preaching the gospel to them. Now that I've discussed these 4 circumstances, Christians would respond to them by telling me: "I hope you'll obtain salvation someday." Well, let's pretend I somehow become convinced of Jesus' existence, his crucifixion for our sins, and Eternal Torment or Annihilationism.
This conviction, as I said earlier, would compel me to repent to obtain salvation because I wouldn't want to suffer eternal torment or be annihilated, and I'd want an experience that's far better than any emotional pleasure (a personal relationship with Jesus).
That means I'd surrender myself to the Lord, which means I'd do what God wants me to do, despite the fact it would anger my mom and others (as I've explained in circumstance #4), and might be futile (as I've explained in circumstance #1). As long as I don't have that conviction, then I won't repent.
If, let's pretend, I do repent someday, then it would be obvious to me if I've obtained salvation or not because having a personal relationship with Jesus would completely transform me as an individual and render my pleasant emotions unnecessary. So, if I repent and don't notice this happening to me, then I haven't obtained salvation.