"In the beginning God created ...."

[Age]

And science is regarded as something which is the enemy of Christian religion...because science take the gods creation and examines it and tells us that is is not the product of magic but of...?

The mission of science is to give us control over nature. Scientists aspire towards such power.

It seems to be a conflict of interest with the Christian God.

But does it really...well I suppose in relation to the 'mysterious' idea of a creator...perhaps...perhaps not...it would erase the image of a humanlike being upon a glorious throne surrounded by heavenly beings...but one could suppose that if a creator could simulate the physical universe the same creator could simulate heaven and a god on a throne for those who expect such...so the idea itself is repugnant to those who feel that such a simulation wouldn't be 'true' even if that is what they expect to experience as 'true' It has to be 'real' or it cannot be 'true...

Something to think about...

Well, you know how it goes with chickens and eggs. Seeming as the idea of "creation" was created by humans...

WHY?

What ACTUALLY came FIRST is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to work out, with 'reasoned logic'.

So if the idea of God-the-creator was originally created by humans then... I guess we are the original creators, eh?

Not so much reject as not understanding the significance of...until now...thank you.

It would be a psychological benefit to remain ignorant of the truth IF the truth was that we exist within a simulation because even if we then experienced a heaven in an afterlife, we could not be sure that it was actually real or just something created for (or perhaps even by) us, to fulfill our expectations.

In so far as I can tell - that's the same thing looked from a different perspective.

The idea of God was made in our self-image. The desire to be powerful - omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. The desire to create - universes if possible. We, humans, invent tools. It's one of the things which separates us from other animals.

It's the idea of control. We want to be in control of our destiny. Reality has other things in store...

REALLY?

You REALLY do have a VERY LIMITED and SMALL perspective and view of things here.

But this is because you are only LOOKING FROM a VERY NARROWED and TINY field of view. You are OBVIOUSLY only LOOKING AT this from YOUR perspective ONLY. Which, by the way, EXPLAINS WHY you are still so far behind from what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

It wouldn't be 'true' whereas believing the current creation is a true (real) creation and not a Simulated reality, then one can also believe the expected heaven that awaits one, will also be real and not a reality simulation.

I mean sure, that's one interpretation. Another interpretation of the simulation is that it's a penal colony. And if you aren't quite ready for parole or rehabilitated enough to go into the "real society" - back into the simulation you go! Much like the Indian idea of Karma/re-birth.

But the argument re "a psychological benefit" has it faults, because why should it matter, if the results expected are the same?

Because the journey towards the destination is more enjoyable that way.

I would answer that it does not matter 'where' they exist. If they are experienced as real, they could be part of the reality simulation and are meant to be experienced as real, and also as different.

But you do prefer joy to pain, do you not?

And so if the journey could be painful, or it could be joyful - I imagine you'd much prefer a joyful one. Even if the outcome (death; or afterlife) is the same.

Can you give any example?

Trivially. How did God create our universe?

As I have previously PARTLY EXPLAINED;

1. "our universe" is a MISNOMER.

2. NOTHING 'created' this Universe.

3. This Universe is (IN) Creation.

4. God is Creating this Universe.

With ALL of this, contrary to POPULAR BELIEF, being able to be backed up and supported with ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF, and which WILL BE PROVEN True empirically AND logically.

He has a much better computer/cloud than we do and more advanced programming languages.
And he modeled us up in 7 days.

If you have any experience/familiarity with programming/computation this explanation is more relatable than "he just made us".

Keyboard? Reminds me of something I saw once...

The interface itself is less significant than the fact that the Programmer interfaces with the computer somehow...

Voice. Neuralink. Whatever.

The first few chapters of Genesis seem to be bullet points of a story rather than the story itself.

Yeah, and none of those points mention God's tools/workbench/medium of expression/creation.

They sorta skip all of those details.

So "In the beginning a creator simulated the universe and placed us into it to experience it as real." might not have meant anything to those around the ancient campfires listening to entertaining stories doing their darndest to answer human questions about their collective situation...

Precisely. Because the idea of "simulation" was not prolific in society back then.

It reminds me of this article which explores the notion of "inferential distance" - the mental effort required to connect existing knowledge to new knowledge.

Can you even imagine the sort of metaphors, leaps and bounds of imagination you'd have to cover to explain a computer to somebody who teleported from 2000BC to 2021AD.

Which is a bit like trying to EXPLAIN to 'you', adult human beings, in the year known as "2021ad", HOW, through just being Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change for the better, EARLIER, 'you' human beings could have been ALREADY, now, living in Peace and Harmony here on earth with "one another" as One, like it is in 'Heaven'.

You would have also LEARNED just HOW the Mind and the brain work, as well as other minute details like WHAT the Universe ACTUALLY IS and HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

Finding the RIGHT language and words, however, to get 'you', adult human beings, to become OPEN ONCE MORE, so that you could ACTUALLY LEARN and SEE what thee ACTUALLY Truth IS, just takes some duration though.

See, once 'you', adult human beings, LEARN these 'things', then passing this True, Right, and Correct KNOWLEDGE onto your children becomes exponentially EASIER and SIMPLER ALL of the time BECAUSE NOTHING is being said which is in CONFLICT nor in CONTRADICTION with ANY thing else. Which is just about ONLY what how 'you', adult human beings, talk now in the year known as "2021ad". As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN throughout these forums.

[Skepdick]

What ACTUALLY came FIRST is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to work out, with 'reasoned logic'.

Ooooh. WITH LOGIC you say?

Logic is invented. By humans.

According to the Logic (invented by humans) then humans came first, and then humans invented the idea of God-the-creator.

You REALLY do have a VERY LIMITED and SMALL perspective and view of things here.

That's impossible for you to claim, since I always have one more perspective than you do.

But this is because you are only LOOKING FROM a VERY NARROWED and TINY field of view. You are OBVIOUSLY only LOOKING AT this from YOUR perspective ONLY. Which, by the way, EXPLAINS WHY you are still so far behind from what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

You are projecting your narrow-mindedness onto me.

As I have previously PARTLY EXPLAINED;

1. "our universe" is a MISNOMER.

2. NOTHING 'created' this Universe.

3. This Universe is (IN) Creation.

4. God is Creating this Universe.

From where I am looking this universe is already created. We, humans, are just re-arranging it.

With ALL of this, contrary to POPULAR BELIEF, being able to be backed up and supported with ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF, and which WILL BE PROVEN True empirically AND logically.

Logic, empiricism and "provability" were invented. By humans.

Awkward!

Which is a bit like trying to EXPLAIN to 'you', adult human beings, in the year known as "2021ad", HOW, through just being Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change for the better, EARLIER, 'you' human beings could have been ALREADY, now, living in Peace and Harmony here on earth with "one another" as One, like it is in 'Heaven'.

You would have also LEARNED just HOW the Mind and the brain work, as well as other minute details like WHAT the Universe ACTUALLY IS and HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

Finding the RIGHT language and words, however, to get 'you', adult human beings, to become OPEN ONCE MORE, so that you could ACTUALLY LEARN and SEE what thee ACTUALLY Truth IS, just takes some duration though.

Oh well that's easy! Don't tell us how - show us how.

[Age]

What ACTUALLY came FIRST is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to work out, with 'reasoned logic'.

Ooooh. WITH LOGIC you say?

I ACTUALLY SAID, 'with REASONED logic'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN above.

Logic is invented. By humans.

Okay.

According to the Logic (invented by humans) then humans came first, and then humans invented the idea of God-the-creator.

OF COURSE the IDEA of ANY 'thing' was, for lack of better wording, at the moment, 'invented' by human beings.

IDEAS exist within human bodies. So, OBVIOUSLY human bodies, and thus human beings HAD TO EXIST FIRST, BEFORE ANY 'ideas' could come along.

Also, is that "the logic", which you are just using, or, is that "the logic", which is IRREFUTABLE?

You REALLY do have a VERY LIMITED and SMALL perspective and view of things here.

That's impossible for you to claim, since I always have one more perspective than you do.

But I did NOT say ANY thing about HOW MANY. I said VERY LIMITED and SMALL.

You could have a THOUSAND more perspectives than "another" but YOURS could still be VERY LIMITED and SMALL in comparision.

But this is because you are only LOOKING FROM a VERY NARROWED and TINY field of view. You are OBVIOUSLY only LOOKING AT this from YOUR perspective ONLY. Which, by the way, EXPLAINS WHY you are still so far behind from what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

You are projecting your narrow-mindedness onto me.

Am I?

Or could it be an actual POSSIBILITY that I could ACTUALLY PROVE what I have said, AND CLAIMED here?

As I have previously PARTLY EXPLAINED;

1. "our universe" is a MISNOMER.

2. NOTHING 'created' this Universe.

3. This Universe is (IN) Creation.

4. God is Creating this Universe.

From where I am looking this universe is already created. We, humans, are just re-arranging it.

Okay. This is YOUR VIEW of 'things'.

Are you AWARE that thee ACTUAL Universe is just slightly a bit BIGGER and OLDER than what 'you', minuscule, short lived, and insignificant human beings, could actually have an INFLUENCE ON?

By the way, WHEN do you think or believe this Creation BEGAN and ENDED?

With ALL of this, contrary to POPULAR BELIEF, being able to be backed up and supported with ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF, and which WILL BE PROVEN True empirically AND logically.

Logic, empiricism and "provability" were invented. By humans.

Awkward![/quote]

HOW EXACTLY would this even be, so called, "awkward".

If 'you', "skepdick" do NOT use what 'you', human beings, invented, to TEST and VERIFY, then what do you use?

By the way, EVERY word, and their definitions, used by human beings was INVENTED, by 'you', human beings. But what is the POINT of continually POINTING THIS OUT?

Which is a bit like trying to EXPLAIN to 'you', adult human beings, in the year known as "2021ad", HOW, through just being Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change for the better, EARLIER, 'you' human beings could have been ALREADY, now, living in Peace and Harmony here on earth with "one another" as One, like it is in 'Heaven'.

You would have also LEARNED just HOW the Mind and the brain work, as well as other minute details like WHAT the Universe ACTUALLY IS and HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

Finding the RIGHT language and words, however, to get 'you', adult human beings, to become OPEN ONCE MORE, so that you could ACTUALLY LEARN and SEE what thee ACTUALLY Truth IS, just takes some duration though.

Oh well that's easy! Don't tell us how - show us how.

I HAVE BEEN. But 'you' KEEP MISSING IT.

I EVEN SHOWED IT here in this quote of mine you just posted. However, your words here SHOWS that you MISSED IT, ONCE AGAIN.

[Walker]

WHY?

What happens if I do NOT?

Then you will realize the consequences of lifetime enslavement to whatever causes your random capitalization.

[Walker]

And "Walker" cease with enabling Age by engaging with him...unless of course you two are in cahoots and the objective is to highjack threads...

Looks like you've become Age's enabler.

[Walker]

And "Skepdick" cease with enabling Age by engaging with him...unless of course you two are in cahoots and the objective is to highjack threads...

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think that the universe cannot be simulated to appear real to those experiencing it as real?

You're missing my point, I'm afraid.

If it's experienced by EVERYONE as real, then it IS the only "real" that exists. There is then no "simulation" going on.

Let's put it this way: in an example.

You're in a movie theatre, and an usher comes in and yells, "Fire protocol: everybody head to the exits."

What's your first question?

"Is it a real fire?" you ask him.

Now, what difference does his answer make? If he says "Yes," then out you go. If he says "No," then out you go anyway. So in a sense, you might say, "It makes no difference." But in the first case, there is a real fire, and in the second, it's just a "simulation."

But what's it a "simulation" of? It's a simulation of a real fire protocol. If there were no such things as real fires, there would be no "simulations" either. There would be nothing to "simulate."

So if we know the fire is "simulated," we also know there's something called "a real fire."

Get it yet?

Therefore Christians calling the universe a 'creation' can be critiqued using the same argument. "If nobody knows it's a creation, then there's nobody to call it a "creation" -- and it's not. Then, it's the only reality there is, and as real as anything can be."

It's not an "argument," in that case. It's an "explanation." That's quite a different thing.

If the Creation is all we have, then it IS reality. Period. The correct explanation for reality is, "It is the Creation from God."

So in relation to the Christian belief, God created the physical universe does not imply the universe is not a "real" universe.

In any belief, if the Christians are right. Christians hold that God created the only universe we have.

But I could argue that everything one can experience could be a simulation.

A "simulation" of what? You see, there would have to then be another reality, the non-created one, of which the created one was the "simulation." Or else it's not "simulating" anything.

So I was asking you, what to Atheists have for proof of a non-created "reality," of which they might allege the created reality was the mere "simulation"?

Do you have anything on that?

[Age]

WHY?

What happens if I do NOT?

Then you will realize the consequences of lifetime enslavement to whatever causes your random capitalization.

But my capitalization is done for VERY SPECIFIC REASONS, of which will become OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.

[Walker]

You're still enslaved by the need that causes you to be a Cap-freak.

You have no free-will control over it.

When you least expect it, the corruption appears.

Set yourself free, Age.

[VVilliam]

Do you think that the universe cannot be simulated to appear real to those experiencing it as real?

You're missing my point, I'm afraid.

If it's experienced by EVERYONE as real, then it IS the only "real" that exists. There is then no "simulation" going on.

Let's put it this way: in an example.

You're in a movie theatre, and an usher comes in and yells, "Fire protocol: everybody head to the exits."

What's your first question?

"Is it a real fire?" you ask him.

Now, what difference does his answer make? If he says "Yes," then out you go. If he says "No," then out you go anyway. So in a sense, you might say, "It makes no difference." But in the first case, there is a real fire, and in the second, it's just a "simulation."

But what's it a "simulation" of? It's a simulation of a real fire protocol. If there were no such things as real fires, there would be no "simulations" either. There would be nothing to "simulate."

So if we know the fire is "simulated," we also know there's something called "a real fire."

Get it yet?

What I get is that you do not know what simulation theory is. If you were arguing this with a group of scientists, they would agree with your example but will tell you that is not what they are referring to regarding 'simulation'.

Simulation - is a word used to approximate the idea we might not exist within what we think of as 'reality/real' - in that, it is not suggesting the experience people have [fires and earthquakes and everything else] are false.
A panel of minds would not have bothered having this discussion [2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?] if they thought simulation meant what you think it means.

I hope this helps you to 'get it'

Therefore Christians calling the universe a 'creation' can be critiqued using the same argument. "If nobody knows it's a creation, then there's nobody to call it a "creation" -- and it's not. Then, it's the only reality there is, and as real as anything can be."

It's not an "argument," in that case. It's an "explanation." That's quite a different thing.

If the Creation is all we have, then it IS reality. Period. The correct explanation for reality is, "It is the Creation from God."

Semantics aside, "it is a Reality Simulation created by a creator named 'God'." In the beginning God created the reality simulation [physical universe] we are experiencing as real.

So in relation to the Christian belief, God created the physical universe does not imply the universe is not a "real" universe.

In any belief, if the Christians are right. Christians hold that God created the only universe we have.

As the OP points to - the question is asking why Christians have a problem with accepting the idea of the physical universe being a simulation , but not a creation.

But I could argue that everything one can experience could be a simulation.

A "simulation" of what? You see, there would have to then be another reality, the non-created one, of which the created one was the "simulation." Or else it's not "simulating" anything.

First up we cannot assume that whatever we are experiencing isn't a simulation. If I were to die [the chances are great that I will] and find myself in another reality experience [the chances are 50/50 as far as I - the agnostic - am concerned] and it had similar objects which I could identify as familiar, [which those who have experienced alternate realities have informed us as being the case] this in itself would not automatically mean that this new experience I am then having, is any less a simulation that my previous one. It may not even be that I am experiencing the same universe which created the physical universe reality simulation.

So I was asking you, what do Atheists have for proof of a non-created "reality," of which they might allege the created reality was the mere "simulation"?
Do you have anything on that?

Only this;

Atheists are those who lack belief in creator(s) - Therefore they lack belief we exist within a creation and regard the physical universe as the only real thing which exists and do not believe it is a creation wrought through the works of a creator.
Your referencing the word "mere" In relation to the physical universe, if it is a simulation, is not justified or justifiable.

As to your question, I have nothing in the way of concrete evidence which can be shown to anyone either way, nor do atheists and nor do theists.

I see we exist and share the same overall experience of the physical universe. Each of us evaluate the nature of this reality we are experiencing, based upon exactly what it is we have each experienced so far and how we each in wardly interpret those experiences in relation to the wider shared reality we all are experiencing.
Obviously that is purely subjective and thus of little use to scientific investigation, which largely depends upon objective reality - examining what is measurable regarding the object [physical universe]

If the universe is created, it is a simulation which can be experienced as real, and thus those things which can be measured by those ones who are experiencing it, [us humans together] have some freedom to manipulate it using the materials the simulation provides for this to happen. Thus we experience the reality of the simulation provided for us to do so.

So when we play in the wind, and scoop mud up in our hands and smell the earth in the forests, we are having real experience. Nothing 'mere' about it, even if it is simulated.

[VVilliam]

You're still enslaved by the need that causes you to be a Cap-freak.

You have no free-will control over it.

When you least expect it, the corruption appears.

Set yourself free, Age.

[aside note]
Rather than be obsessed by what appears to be "Cap-Freakism" [I know right! It can be annoying!] observe it as an attempt to piss people off because those who don't like it 9 times out of 10 will get pissed off [mission accomplished] showing how easy they are to control.

What I have decided to do is ignore the CAPS issue as being a "problem". We all now that it is how we SHOUT when using the written word so when we read the written word, that SHOUT can be heard in our heads.

In that way a SHOUT (the persistent use of caps) 'gets into ones head' and annoys us. When we ask it to desist and it does not, this annoys us. We say so and thus are enabling it. We could 'ignore the troll' but that is what the troll wants so that the troll can get about spamming the forum with whatever the troll pulls out of its butt, flinging its flavor all over the place.

Ordinarily moderators would soon enough intervene but there don't appear to be any who are active in that department.

So what can we do?

Stop being annoyed by it.

Take pieces of the dung flung which are most related to thread subject and ignore the rest.

Example:

Dung Flung [use of caps]
"The, so called, big bang theory is just a "theory", which OBVIOUSLY is just an ASSUMPTION or a GUESS about what took place. And, just as OBVIOUS is ALL 'theories', 'assumptions', and 'guesses' could be COMPLETELY or PARTLY WRONG. Also, you make the CLAIM now that that 'theory' is based on "interpretations" of, so called, "evidence" collected so far. Now, before 'you' 'try to' DEFLECT to FAR AWAY, my question WAS and STILL REMAINS, 'What 'evidence' are you referring to, EXACTLY."

When I quote the flinger of said 'dung', I removed the caps - yes it takes 'time' but the results are better as I have removed the shouting, so it isn't in my head. Also - I take just the most relevant [to the topic] snippet so do not have to engage with ALL the shite flung. For there is always plenty of that.

In changing the capped words in italics, it gives a slightly more understandable slant on what the flinger is trying to emphasis.

Thus;

The, so called, big bang theory is just a "theory", which obviously is just an assumption or a guess about what took place. And, just as obvious is all 'theories', 'assumptions', and 'guesses' could be completely or partly wrong. Also, you make the claim now that that 'theory' is based on "interpretations" of, so called, "evidence" collected so far.

Thus one regains control of ones self in relation the other and deactivates the "enable" button

[Walker]

Oh sure. That's step one.

Everybody gets that.

Step two is Age's personal, uncontrollable enslavement that insists on never budging off the launch pad.

One way to insure that is to derail a thread with a lot of noise. Doesn't bother me. It's simply evidence of her own imprisonment, and awareness is the beginning of freedom, which can be infectious, as can enslavement.

[Immanuel Can]

What I get is that you do not know what simulation theory is.

Then you don't get my point at all. Sorry.

In the beginning God created the reality simulation [physical universe] we are experiencing as real.

If there is no other reality, no ultimate reality, then what you are saying is no different at all from "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." In other words, you're just repeating Genesis 1:1.

So I was asking you, what do Atheists have for proof of a non-created "reality," of which they might allege the created reality was the mere "simulation"?
Do you have anything on that?

Only this;

Atheists are those who lack belief in creator(s)

Well, that's not a very good definition. It makes rocks and trees "Atheists" too, since they simply "lack belief in a Creator." But let's pretend it's okay, and roll with it. The second problem with it is that it begs the question, "IS there a Creator?" because if there is, then the Atheist is merely wrong, which is not a great tribute to his wisdom. So he's assuming his conclusion.

That is, unless he has evidence which compels the conclusion "There IS no God." Does he have evidence adequate to that conclusion? What would it be? But you write:

As to your question, I have nothing in the way of concrete evidence which can be shown to anyone either way,

Okay, so you're personally agnostic, I guess. I assume you're not arbitrarily ruling without evidence in favour of Atheism, right?

nor do atheists and nor do theists.

We don't know what they have. You don't know what I have, in fact. What you know, and what you have said, is what you, personally, do not have. And I accept your declaration of your own lack of evidence. Why wouldn't I? But I'm not thereby compelled to have the same lack as you claim to have, am I?

If the universe is created, it is a simulation

No, that doesn't follow logically or necessarily.

The most you can say is, "If the universe is created, I guess it might possibly be a simulation relative to whatever real reality is." You can't say you know it's that. And you have no reason to suppose it's that at all. You're merely speculating, by your own confession. You say you have no evidence.

I believe you.

[Dontaskme]

You're still enslaved by the need that causes you to be a Cap-freak.

And you are still enslaved by the need that causes you to be a Control-freak.

You have no free-will control over it.

When you least expect it, the corruption appears.

Set yourself free, Walker

[VVilliam]

In the beginning God created the reality simulation [physical universe] we are experiencing as real.

If there is no other reality, no ultimate reality, then what you are saying is no different at all from "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." In other words, you're just repeating Genesis 1:1.

Which answers my question "What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?" - There is no difference.

So I was asking you, what do Atheists have for proof of a non-created "reality," of which they might allege the created reality was the mere "simulation"?
Do you have anything on that?

Only this;

Atheists are those who lack belief in creator(s) - Therefore they lack belief we exist within a creation and regard the physical universe as the only real thing which exists and do not believe it is a creation wrought through the works of a creator.
Your referencing the word "mere" In relation to the physical universe, if it is a simulation, is not justified or justifiable.

Well, that's not a very good definition. It makes rocks and trees "Atheists" too, since they simply "lack belief in a Creator."

There is no way to tell that is the case, so I ignore your claim re that.
But 'whatever' I am not an 'Atheist' so leave it up to them to defend their definition against such accusations. I did not make up said definition.

But let's pretend it's okay, and roll with it.

No need to pretend as it is what it is. Roll with it.

The second problem with it is that it begs the question, "IS there a Creator?" because if there is, then the Atheist is merely wrong, which is not a great tribute to his wisdom. So he's assuming his conclusion.

Perhaps, but I am not an Atheist.

That is, unless he has evidence which compels the conclusion "There IS no God." Does he have evidence adequate to that conclusion? What would it be?

From what I can ascertain, Atheists are compelled to their conclusion because they have seen no evidence to the contrary.

But you write:

As to your question, I have nothing in the way of concrete evidence which can be shown to anyone either way,

Okay, so you're personally agnostic, I guess. I assume you're not arbitrarily ruling without evidence in favour of Atheism, right?

Correct.

nor do atheists and nor do theists.

We don't know what they have. You don't know what I have, in fact. What you know, and what you have said, is what you, personally, do not have. And I accept your declaration of your own lack of evidence. Why wouldn't I? But I'm not thereby compelled to have the same lack as you claim to have, am I?

Not at all. Why would you ask? I have not argued that you do or do not.

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

No, that doesn't follow logically or necessarily.

The most you can say is, "If the universe is created, I guess it might possibly be a simulation relative to whatever real reality is." You can't say you know it's that. And you have no reason to suppose it's that at all. You're merely speculating, by your own confession. You say you have no evidence.

I believe you.

You appear to be implying that you do have evidence, as you wrote this;

"You don't know what I have, in fact."

Should I just 'believe' you or wait for you to show me that evidence?

Or are you implying something else as to 'what you know'?