For Phillips, science and religion are different types of discourse, and we can justify/explain neither. The game here is basic (something foundationalist, however Phillips argues otherwise). If this is the case, then science and theology could say nothing to each other or about each other, yet the very question of science and religion is a significant discussion point in both communities. As Sherry argues that we can discuss particular justifications such as those for astrology or christianity. Moreover, whilst it may be absurd to argue 'Is science true' (the truth value), the question 'Why pursue science?' (Motivations/Justifications) is not. Language theorists rule out many different types of question as being based on failure to understand the rules of the game, but these are real questions within the game. To develop this, in the community of faith, God is not simply a given term, with meaning to the community (other believers in other communities can understand the world God). It is central to the very notion of faith that God might not exist - his non-existence is a real possibility which the true believer accepts (which is why they have faith and not certainty). If the real possibility of the non-reality of God is part of the believer's language game, then it is a game that the non-believer can play (the games of God's existence and non-existence are not separable). Therefore, Language Games deem many dialogues as not possible whereas in reality, this is not the case. As a result, it opens the question of whether it is necessary to understand the rules of a language game in order for terms used in the language game to be meaningful, undermining a key premiss of language games (language games is incompatible with reality). Moreover, Language Games' rejection of an objective reality is often refuted through faith in God's existence