advanced civilisations living underneath us

or on the other side of the ice wall

we might have dragons and titans on the other side

So now you are mocking me?

Outside of the ice wall where land meets sky, there could be a door that leads to the void.

maybe the door is metal

No, there could be two doors, one in the East and one in the West.

If you leave through the door you enter the endless and timeless void of nothing.

Is this void based on anything? Like, is there mention of a void beyond the firmament?

how do i get the global earther role? @🎃Oakheart🎃

Go to roles selection.

<#564530293336309821>

@Drewski4343 What else could possibly be there?

It could be anything, I suppose, if the firmament exists. Perhaps there is no door at all. The existence of a firmament would definitely imply intelligent design, so maybe it's heavenly waters beyond it.

Perhaps so

Modern science doesn't seem to like intelligent design.

No, but that's because science seeks to explain natural phenomenon scientifically. Anything supernatural is, by definition, out of the realm of science.

I always thought sentience/intelligence on our level is like a spark, a flame. Dolphins have huge brains, but that doesn't make intelligence.

It's just a quality so rare.

It is a very special trait.

I like to explore the metaphysical because it's a new frontier.

Something that isn't cut and dry.

No

Why

You should learn about it yourself then ask questions after learning a bit

We have a fighting the globe category

Go look at it

Then ask questions

Modern science would only disagree with being able to evaluate the conclusions of intelligent design. It can however decrease confidence in certain premises which lead to the conclusion of intelligent design.

for example, a ID believer may say "well these certain proteins have no way of evolving gradually", however if science could point to a way or example of them gradually evolving that would decrease confidence in the premise ID believers use

science can't really attack the conclusion of ID though

And you can keep complicating premises which still reach that conclusion

Like saying dinosaur bones are tricks planted by God or something

So if the premises are set up in a reasonable physical way science can increase or decrease confidence in those premises, but if they are unreasonable maybe not

proof of Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction: punch a table as hard as you can, does it hurt? Thats cause the table exerts a resistant force against your punch, thus equal and opposite reaction. From this we can prove the existence of a normal force and gravity since the force of gravity is what that little number is measuring when we stand on a scale and in order for us to stay on the ground and not shoot through the floor we would need to have a force opposing it, this is the normal force and as long as you are not in free fall you will have a force of gravity equal to that of the normal force. Qualifications: I live in my parent's basement mostly watching porn and contemplating my eventual demise.

What are you arguing again? @Fran

@floridaswamptrash Often times you reach conclusions about God or supernatural beings through physical observations; Science can decrease or increase confidence in those physical observations, but you can still change your argument to being purely nonphysical which makes it outside the realm of science

However the usefulness of Science is that you have empirical evidence for these physical claims and then if your argument naturally leads to evidence of God from these claims it gives you empirical evidence for the existence of God

if you are in a fully nonphysical argument for God you lose this advantage; you cant use empirical or physical evidence for the existence of God

Chance is the science's version of God

That would be like the ontological proof