So I don’t see a conflict there and if anything they fit nicely together.
We can theoretically envision the rough outline at least of how we might be able to create planets, a universe, we’ve created artificial life. We are far from possessing the technology to do so on a biblical scale, but we have some version of technology and knowledge that could reasonably lead to such things if we were able to produce and harness the massive amounts of energy to do so and undertake the massive engineering and resource challenges and surmount some obstacles in our knowledge gap. It’s been played with in sci fi and such- some theory or idea of man creating a god or becoming our own god or a new god or our machines doing so. Based on our understanding it isn’t impossible or necessarily implausible of our species continues on this path and lasts awhile. It also is just speculation. Maybe it isn’t possible. We never know.

Numerous but at least understandable from their vantage- so too could the choice of a creator be. So nothing says the universe was created Willy nilly and that order disproves a creation or that disorder or the not yet understood prove a creation. If a god were real, we wouldn’t know the reasoning behind their choices or any constraints they had. Their purpose, any of it. In fact an intelligent and powerful creator would imply the possibility a design was specifically made to elude our ability to completely understand or view it.

.. any engine but are bound to their decisions in what they can build inside their creation, like their decisions are bound by the hardware they designate to run the thing and their reasons for selecting a certain hardware and not say- every new game needing a server farm of super computers to run- are

Long reply. Sorry. Last bit- and at the end of the day nothing says that science and a god cannot coexist.
Imagine an AI attempting to learn its programming and how to build a computer by probing itself and the hardware it occupies. It has no eyes or agency to “look at the case” itself but from inside it can likely determine the mechanisms its creators used to make its world. It could decipher how the systems and programs that make its reality and itself works, and maybe by context discern the purpose for which it was made even- or find out there was no purpose, someone wanted to see if they could or thought it would be neat.
If we take a view abrahamic god is real- science and math are just us trying to decipher the tool kit and understand how this stuff was made. And it turns out it may not be so “supernatural” but all follow rules- either because that maker was bound by rules or because they decided that their system should have certain rules and then- like programmers may use..

.. our dimension. Or not. Until then we have a functional theory and it is up to the pro goblin camp to prove that goblins are involved and the theory is wrong. The fact no one has proven goblins make helium doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it is just not proven- but it doesn’t really matter in the heat and now so I won’t argue against the possibility or say that the goblin lobby is wrong so long as they don’t try to establish goblins as operational theory before they have sufficient evidence.

In my mind I see disbelief in the un disprovable to be no different than equally zealous belief in that which cannot be proven. A junkie is a junkie no matter the drug. A killer is a killer wether they choose at random or have a pattern. A corrupt politician is corrupt wether they are your party or their actions benefit you or not, Willfully closing one’s mind or making judgments in absence of fact is a trait and if one has such a trait, it doesn’t matter where they point it or where they focus it beyond circumstance and superficial chance of actual real world harm of their mindset.
That’s just my take. So long as people don’t leave it at “goblins made the balloon float…” then I must admit the door is open that goblins are involved or may exist. Functionally they seem to have no bearing on our use or understanding of floating balloons but maybe in 300 years we will discover a wavelength of detection that shows goblins as extra dimensional entities excrete what presents as helium in..

Forcing the answer is what we do to cope with uncertainty. Many are compelled to judge based on facts at hand vs. To leave a judgment ambiguous when facts are missing. Sometimes it is a matter or prudence or survival and we must act- but other times it largely makes no difference in general. Changes effectively nothing.
Science is a game of what we don’t know, not what we do. What we know and works we use until or unless a better model comes along. There isn’t anything inherently better in lack of belief in the supernatural or Devine vs. Belief in- of course belief in can be exploited in other ways or cause issues- but generally the logical person wouldn’t fall to such devices. The problem in my mind has never been spirits or religions or such- it is the way that so many people fail to think and keep a growth mindset.

To be honest- the atheist thing was a bit of a dig, more than needed to be. I personally do not care for atheism. Agnostics and depending on specifics non seculars are fine with me- but in my mind a philosophy which decides concretely that something doesn’t exist is not scientific. It is faith based, illogical, and works contrary to the growth of human knowledge.
When someone’s father leaves when they are young, somewhere between. “Dad was a space ranger who went to mars to save humanity and never would have left me otherwise” and “dad is scum that hated me” are a wide range of most likely more realistic possibilities.

But from our perspective there is just what we know, what we know we don’t know, and what we don’t know we don’t know- and any of those can contain errors in our perception etc.
I don’t rule out things like ghosts and boogie men, I haven’t seen them. The evidence suggests that wether they exist or not, there is no reason to factor them in to any serious calculation or decision nor to account for them.
But in my mind, and by general definition, science and logic cannot prove the impossible. They cannot disprove the possible. They can only gather observation and tangible or empirical evidence and speculation to form theory which is judged on how well it can be reconciled with existing theory and observable cause and effect.

We don’t agree but we don’t disagree? I like to think that “supernatural” and such are terms for that which we either do not understand yet, or possibly may never understand.
Math is the “programming language of the universe,” at least the part that’s gone through a compiler and is somewhat human readable. In theory, if the universe is a system of set rules, with enough processing power and information- it should be possible to predict every event ever. Maybe. We are pushing our understanding of the universe, but we don’t really have a reference for true “randomness” and all data suggests such a thing may not exist. So in absence of randomness, any system can be predicted if one understands the system well enough and has the processing power to account all the variables. This would line up largely with the concept of many gods- the ability to “know” all.

Of course the elderly and very young as well as some people with medical conditions like heat rash don’t have a lot of choice as the heat can be extra dangerous or unpleasant for them.
But I’m with you in principle that not running AC unnecessarily is something almost anyone can do.
By the same token is is generally much easier to get warm in the cold then get cool.

Now, I have spent a lifetime in various desserts and doing punishing manual labor outside in 100-110 degree heat. I remove the AC from almost every car I’ve ever owned and I’ve only ever used it for passengers when I didn’t have it- usually female ones for their comfort. I’ve never used AC in any of my homes.
That said- nah. If you’re somewhere hot and humid you can’t “run it a few hours.” Especially older homes and systems. With the AC full blast all day AND portable AC units in key rooms my sisters house a few weeks ago was 90f inside.
More modern and efficient homes might be able to make do, but if you don’t have good insulation and design you basically either run it all day or don’t bother running it at all.

Don’t get me wrong- as said- enduring hits like Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz etc. used this concept. Version of it or the same root hook can be found in much science fiction- visiting strange worlds or discovering worlds “within” our world- Journey to the center of the Earth, 20,0000 leagues under the sea, John Carter- works like Jumanji, it’s even common in time travel. Did Marty not spend the entire second film more or less, in a world that was “not his,” as explained by Doc- literally another world?
So it’s a common enough theme but it isn’t one people historically have sought out enough to carve its own genre of fiction in the US.
So call it as you like.

… fandom. Until fairly recently, with rare exception, the western and especially American models for these things were very different. While America has long running franchises we don’t often have the long term story and character based continuity in fiction of Japan. Historically people rarely waited or kept interest En mass when it was years or decades between installments with rare exceptions that are mostly recent in the last 40 or so years.
Comic culture and cartoon culture still are and long have been very different and historically cartoons and comics weren’t seen by a mass public or media and corporate industries as “adult” or generally very lucrative outside of primarily child targeted animated films and shows.
It is also the case that historically the mechanism of “going to another world” hasn’t really been very “big.”

So if one were Japanese one might call many works of fiction “itsekai,” and in theory there is nothing stopping the English language adoption of loan words, so we COULD use that word. In practice there is an argument that regardless of language the genre concept doesn’t really exist or have strong footing in the English language or concept of fiction at large. A kid transported to a fantasy world of knights and castles and such would generally just be called “fantasy” or “youth/young adult fantasy.” And we might say: “it’s a fantasy where a kid is transported to a medieval world.”
It could be that historically western fans of literature and fiction are less focussed in our interests. While there are those who enjoy and seek out time travel stories or space stories, stories of bleak technologically advanced futures, supernatural or some element like vampires or demons- our fan culture just tends to be different maybe. We generally don’t have the scale or scope of much Japanese..

For example a work where the failed rise of communism led to a world where the UN held primary jurisdiction but was otherwise fairly mundane might be speculative historical fiction whereas a world where the failed rose of communism led to a UN dystopia with giant robots leans more into fantasy and might be considered an alternate world scenario. In an alternate world scenario the “what ifs?” And gaps to our current world in terms like technology and society tend to be much larger than is generally observed in human history.

In American English we tend to classify things more by general genre, style, and composition than specific theme.
“Gritty thriller” “noir mystery” “epic” etc. the exact story elements or circumstances often only come into the equation when examining or deconstructing fiction.
In more recent times it has become increasingly common to append aesthetic elements- “post apocalyptic” “cyber punk” “alternate reality” etc. as appropriate- where for example the genre of speculative historical fiction is a catch all, there are nuances that can blur those lines as speculative fiction of course is fiction and may carry elements of fantasy but is generally thought of to be a more forensic affair- exploring likely or possible outcomes based in some measure of reasonable probability as opposed to alternate time line fictions which often explore more fantastic or less probable outcomes.

In another sense… maybe not? For example,
“Anime” is a Japanese localization of “animation.” It doesn’t inherently apply only to Japanese works. In that sense we could say sponge Bob or the lion king are “anime.”
“Hentai,” as many animated Japanese pornographic works are referred to, is also not a word inherently with that meaning, even in slang form.
Of course we run into some issues. The classic internet joke stems from word play on concepts such as how Champaign is not a type of alcohol in general but a name for a type from a specific region right?
In English we have our own words for various types of fiction.
Within fan and industry communities there are often worlds for certain genres of fiction or fiction meeting certain criteria- dark fantasy, high fantasy, hard sci fi, etc.

If we ignore issues of faith and existence we could simply say that beyond those things each path seeks to a human need for answers.
The remedial religious person simply answers any question with “because god,” and the world is a less scary and mysterious place. Answers found.
The more developed religious mind embraces that ultimately the universe holds the unknown, things you will never answer in any human life and must simply adapt to.
The remedial atheist mind sees the rejection if god as an answer. The universe is a system with answers for every question or with man at the center. The world makes sense and is less scary and mysterious.
The more developed atheist… doesn’t exist really. The advanced thought of atheism is agnosticism, where again, a person embraces not having all the answers and that the unknown and things we will never know in any human life exist.

So the thing that religious folk and atheists alike- but often especially atheists need to understand, is any even hypothetical discussion of god, the logic and reasoning of god- you can’t. You just cannot even start to try to examine it because you could never understand so long as you exist as a human being.
Any understanding you can gain is at best some completely watered down and simplified answer that doesn’t serve any functional purpose beyond satisfying your need to feel you can justify whatever conclusion you intend to make.
A simplified way of saying this is some version of “works in mysterious ways…”
It is an often mocked answer but probably one of the wisest on the subject. If one assumes god exists as prescribed by abrahamic faith, you can’t understand gods mind. It is a mystery to you.

The fact the woman said she was happy might imply to some that she was vindicated, but it is equally true that most people would also be happy to receive a likely ample settlement if they had made something up or had a weak case too.
Likewise the fact Coke said they were happy could be seen as either they are happy to put the matter behind them, they’re just being civil in public, or that they are happy they covered up wrong doing and avoided a larger payout and getting dragged in court.
You can make your own conclusions about what happened but it is only accurate to say Coke ALLEGEDLY fired a woman for being with a Pepsi employee.

If you do well enough in placement and/or have college prep classes in highschool you almost never need to take pre reqs like math and English.
Well- at least where I am from and when I went to school. Everywhere is different im sure.