Forum:The Five Arguments for God

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Enjoy... Here is a very detailed page that counters some arguments from non-believers. I would enjoy if you can prove those premises and conclusions false. Pitzy 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If, after multiple explicit and simple instructions, you still haven't worked out how to sign comments - then it's not entirely clear why we should be convinced by your profound beliefs about the origins of the universe.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, dang, human error reason God didn't make universe. Nice. Pitzy 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Anyone who doesn't want to waste their time can look up:

So, Pitzy could easily have found rebuttals to this list of Craig's in existing RW articles instead of posting on the forum. Whether Pitzy was just lazy, can't find the articles, did a tl;dr, or was simply trolling, I'll leave the reader to ponder. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Why 1st argument is false:[edit]

Enjoy Pitzy 19:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections to premises[edit]

"Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause." —Premise 1

Let's start with the assumptions here, and the first premise is a good place to go for that. This one is wrong even if it's not the core wrongness of the piece(see discussion of premise 2, AKA "how much nonsense are we going to accept for the sake of argument?"). I contest it on a simple phrasing basis. By example, if a train derails, it doesn't have an external cause. It derails because it was moving quickly, and the rails were misaligned. That's two distinct undeniable factors, and that's just the simple direct necessity. To a human looking for cause we'd be concerned with what safety measures were overlooked, what damaged the rails, what design features are meant to overcome derailments and didn't. To say something has an explanation is to view things far to simplistically to operate in the real world. As a universal assumption, it's a flimsy one.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God —Premise 2

The mere fact that we're having this argument tells you this one isn't agreed upon. This is begging the question. If we give you god as a premise, then why would you need to prove it.

The amount of outright strawman nonsense heaped upon atheists in the explanation for this premise deserves an Extra (Censored for our friend's software) Award.

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence. —Atheists, according to this article

I've never heard any atheists ever make any sort of construction remotely resembling this. To you, is it okay to lie about what those you disagree with say? Do you find this to be an ethical and just practice? Look all over this atheist infested wiki. You'll see nothing remotely like this, not even on talk pages, essays, or forums. I urge you to ponder the honesty of William Lane Craig and why you trust him. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Charles Darwin wrote that in his book...He is pretty well known, I think?Pitzy 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Which book, exactly? The Origin of Species? Because he certainly didn't there. you can read the whole thing Ikanreed (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I should remind you that this was a secondary point about craig's honesty and not the main deconstruction. Ikanreed (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel like attacking his credibility is a wise choice. All of you probably have made assumptions and written subjectively, jumping to conclusions and then writing down those conclusions. Just because you write a small lie doesn't mean this guy did. Plus, you know, CHRISTIANITY is about upholding morals, and since he is a Christian he probably upheld his morals and didn't lie.Pitzy 19:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
So your answer to the fact that origin of the species doesn't even remotely contain the text you imagine it does is to call me a liar? [Expletive deleted] you. [Expletive deleted] off. I don't care if you can't read this page anymore. Ikanreed (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to give him some more rope.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections to deduction[edit]

Nah, that's fine. To my logic skills the deduction is good, given the assumptions. We can't give you those assumptions. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why 2nd argument is false[edit]

Enjoy. Pitzy 19:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections to premises[edit]

First and foremost read our article on the cosmological argument. That's this one to a T.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. —premise 1

An interesting supposition here. It's very fluid with the idea of "cause". As per my objections to proof #1, a cause is perhaps reductionist. And the word "cause" is pretty ambiguous. Causality, to physics(for example) isn't an ironclad law of intuition, but a description of the flow of information at the speed of light. Relying on it relies on the existence of time and space. But hold it: those are characteristics of the universe. So that can't be the kind of cause we mean, since we're trying to go to before the universe. There are other kinds of definitions for "cause" and each raises it's own concerns. This premise mostly fails on it's own ambiguity. A more clear version could be written, but seemingly never is.

how about?
"Everything that exists has a purpose?" I feel that clears some of the non-specificness of it. Think about it, everything has a purpose, if you think of something that DIDN'T have a purpose you could disprove this premise, but that won't happen.
So your saying, the premise is true if reworded? Pitzy 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A random rock on the moon. Please clearly state it's purpose. The transmission of AIDS to newborn infants. Purpose is a very different thing. Are you sure you can defend that? Ikanreed (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The universe began to exist. —premise 2

This isn't an objection per se, but a question that is unanswered in the phrasing of the proof.

Time, as revealed through relativity, is a dimension of the universe. A simple variable that a lot of mechanisms of the universe interact with. Velocity is a relationship of time and position. Acceleration is a relationship of time and velocity. Time started, for all intents and purposes, with the universe. We have no evidence to substantiate that it's existence is separate from space, and some pretty good reasons to believe it's existence is attached to space(this is suggested through some rather complex math demonstrating the relationship of velocity and energy and it's similarity to the topology of a hypersphere). Anyways, the question that this premise raises is: what does it mean to "begin to exist" before time?

"Begin" is a word tied to our deeply human perception of time. A time T a thing exists, at T-1 it didn't, so the thing starts to exist at T. But when you don't have T? That idea is meaningless? What does begin mean?

Do you think that time began when the universe began? I don't. I think time has always BEEN, just like God said he always WAS...I believe time is something humans created. So when he says begin, to come into existence, the universe and everything in it CAME to be, it started to exist, the moment of conception. Are we dependent on time? But, that really isn't an objection, your right. So lets roll with it. Pitzy 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Time is not something humans created. Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think the earth wouldn't spin without people on it? Ikanreed (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Time is something humans created. Ha, you think the earth revolving around the sun is "Time"?? Think again. The earth would still spin, but nobody would keep track of its revolutions and rotation. That's all. Pitzy (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections to deduction(this is the big problem)[edit]

Let's grant those premises. There are problems in the deduction.

The problems aren't with the deduction arriving at the conclusion, but the undiscussed further implications thereof. It appears to raise a contradiction thus invalidating the premises. That contradiction comes from taking a further implication. All causes must exist, and thus begin to exist. Your proof suddenly requires causes for causes for causes, with no end, and no evidence for any of them. It's a very suspect implication, and should raise doubts on the premises. For which there are plenty.

And further, even if you accept the premises, and accept the deduction, ignore the further implications, the unstated further conclusion that all causes must be something you deem "God" is an insane non-sequitur. Why would that be true? Completely not established. At all.

Again, see the cosmological argument, our article has a great breakdown of everything wrong here. Better than mine. Ikanreed (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why 3rd argument is false:[edit]

EnjoyPitzy 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections to the premises[edit]

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. —premise 1

I call this premise the "irredeemable asshole argument". It's the one that baldly asserts that you're a bad person for not agreeing with the conclusion. If you make this argument you're an awful person who deserves no respect. Ever. It's untrue, because one can imagine a godless universe where people follow an absolutist moral code. It's not hard. A universe where no one kills, lies, or fights, but no one has heard of god. All in your imagination, but it's easy to see how these concepts are not related.

He brings up the Eurypthro Dilemma, but refuses to consider the "god(s) contradicts himself in revelations" problem that undermines his kinda classless begging the question response. — Unsigned, by: ikanreed / talk / contribs

if I make the moral argument I am an awful person who deserves no respect?....?....?........? I think you hate this argument because it is so true..You know in your heart you have morals. Where did you get those morals? Can someone tel me where you got morals? Morals defined as understanding wrong and right. Why is it wrong? Why is it right? Pitzy 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The iterated prisoners dilemma has an optimal solution of "do unto others as they do unto you" but be slightly nice about it. Hmmm... doesn't that sound like the basis of practically every moral code? So, you don't need god, you need games theory. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're an asshole for making this argument. If you say that people who don't believe in god cannot be moral, you're awful. End of story. It's condemnation for something that hurts no one. It's prejudicial. It's wrong. Making this argument makes you a bad person. Ikanreed (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoah whoah whoah whoah.... First of all, EVERYONE has morals. That's my point. That proves God exists, because everyone has morals... You must be confused, because, even if you don't believe in God you know killing someone is wrong..Pitzy (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Objective moral values and duties do exist. —Premise 2

Completely unsubstantiated. People still argue over what is right and wrong, and have forever. People who claim to follow identical instructions from identical holy books wildly disagree about what is right. Subjectivity reigns. Clearly and unequivocally. There might be an objective reality, but I see no reason to give him it as a premise.

Neither premise stands up to any scrutiny. Ikanreed (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we argue weather abortion is right and wrong, but surely we all agree murder is wrong? I wouldn't say any interpretation of the bible would "wildy" disagree with somebody else's unless the person was purposefully using it in the wrong context. How can you take the 10 commandments as anything but the 10 commandments? He said they do exist, not that everything is ONLY objective, no doubt Subjectivity does reign, but surely it doesn't rein all the time? Pitzy 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside things like there almost always being someone arguing any given murder is justified if it makes the news, here's a question for you. If we can all agree on something, does that necessarily make it objective? If (almost) everyone agrees that the Mono Lisa is beautiful, is it objectively beautiful, or just popular? What's the difference between objective and subjective? How does that figure into your assertions about objective morality? Ikanreed (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it objective that stealing, killing, rape, telling lies, and dissecting humans is wrong? Pitzy (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

why 4th argument is false:[edit]

Enjoy..Pitzy 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections to premises[edit]

The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. —premise 1

A simple false dilemma. Why should those three be the only options?

Apparent fine tuning can also derive from:

  1. Localized convergence of variables
    As an example, consider earth's orbit. It's perfect for life. Liquid water at most levels. But that's just earth. Venus and mars are both outside that band. Why would a designer fail to tune those planets? Pretty unexplained, right? You could call that chance, but in a thousand solar systems with a dozen planets each, it's inevitable
  2. Evolution by natural selection
    Life is a beautiful display of how things can arrive at tuned solutions through somewhat chaotic processes that aren't chance. Giraffes have long necks that are perfectly suited to what they eat because their ancestors that didn't died. There's no absolute law of the universe that says they must. Nor did a small creature just randomly mutate straight into a giraffe one day.
  3. More I haven't thought of, much like Craig didn't think of(or refused to acknowledge) those two.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance. —premise 2

Improbable things happen and Anthropic principle both undermine this "point".

Further objections to consider[edit]


What really meaningful evidence is there that the universe is finely tuned? Life as it exists in this universe is going to be suited to this universe, because otherwise it wouldn't be alive. But maybe there are universes hypothetical even more conducive to life.

  • Maybe if the gravitational constant were an iota stronger, stable solar systems would have formed earlier, and stars exploded less often.
  • Maybe if the speed of light were faster, interstellar travel would be easier(wouldn't that be a fun universe)
  • Maybe there are possible universes where there isn't malaria, aids, and cancer

Why is this the best possible universe?

Second: Wouldn't the ability to intuit that something is designed rely on contrast with something that isn't designed? Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Are rocks not designed?

Well yes. But fine tuning does exist - though not in the form the argument suggests. Evolution has "finely tuned" life to exist on the planet in which it exists. However this is hardly surprising, as we would not be around to consider the fact if evolution did not try to fit life to the environment in which it finds itself.
Secondly the universe as a whole is actually outstandingly inimical to (our kind) of life. Biological life as we know it would not be able to survive in 99.9999999999999 plese continue this number% of the universe. In any event the universe is certainly outstandingly hostile to human beings. For that matter, humans could not survive on most of the surface of the Earth for long - what with it being largely covered with water.
Suggesting that the universe has been created for our convenience is either absurd or implies the existence of a pretty incompetent creator.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC

) Assuming a God exists, this was the best possible universe for us. Pitzy (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally why 5th argument is false:[edit]

Enjoy...Pitzy 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather than premise by premise...

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

—Oh really?

It is possible I have a maximally great house.

If it's possible that I have a maximally great house, then I have a maximally great house in some possible world

If I have a maximally great house in some possible world, then I have one in every possible world.

If I have a maximally great house on every world, then I have one in this world.

Wait... where the heck is my perfect mansion? Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That actually makes a lot of sense, I would say you countered this argument perfectly. Now that I look at it, it is a bit wonky. Pitzy (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

These are old arguments[edit]

The first three fall into one basic premise:

1) Most of it is a great example of special pleading. Everything exists therefore God did it since rhetoric. Based on no evidence it was god (not Thor, or a galatic dog fart) and never answers the question that if everything that exists has a creator...what created god? This is an old argument by apologetics that has been debunked since it was proposed, but it still seems to get repeated to the laughter of anyone with a brain.

Four and five are almost nonsense.

2) Objective morality, especially of the bible, doesn't exist.

3) The possibility of a "maximal being" to exist is nonsense. Just because someone can think something could exist doesn't mean it does. Human beings have imagined dragons, space squid, and sea monsters that can exist as well and they don't.

This can be debunked by elementary school theology. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Although WLK wants to imply that there is something new in these arguments that's not the case. It's the same old ideas re-presented (sometimes) with slightly newer words.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I just get sick of it. Some of these things have been debunked for centuries, and these points are well debunked in many locations now (including RW and by Matt Dillahunty). How many times do they need to be debunked before people stop believing in them?
It's not like electricity gets debunked 30 times but people still believe it exists. People found the evidence that showed it was real and what the properties were. People believe in this god character and keep looking for evidence that it is real. The opposite of how rational thinking goes. Since no matter how many times the evidence is found to be incorrect the belief doesn't change in some people.
Just my opinion, but if people were really strong in their faith they wouldn't need all of this evidence to be accepted by the people around them either. Other people can believe in what they think is true without affecting another persons faith when it is strong. When it is weak they look to convert the people around them because any questioning causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Same when people are not very strong in thinking they made the right decision...they often look for affermation of those around them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In point of fact I think nobody (or very very few people) believe in religion/god/gods because of these arguments anyway. The vast majority of people hold to a particular religion/belief system because that's what their parent's told them was true.
These arguments are not really made up to convince non-believers - they were invented in order to give believers some kind of confirmation that things they have already been trained to believe are, in fact, justifiable in some way. Showing them to be false won't usually change the mind of a believer as believers don't really rely on them anyway.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 23:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though it's just as odd to me. I love and respect my parents a lot, but I also understand they are human. They can be right or wrong about accepting what they said unconditionally for the rest of my life would be insane. A 4 year old accepts fantasies about Santa, or cartoons, or Blues Clues till they are older and they question. Somehow, jesus seems to be exempt from questioning when they grow up. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
HA you think I'm a Christian because of the people around me? They introduced me to God, and then I took him as my own. Pitzy (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And finally[edit]

More arguments isn't better arguments.

Logic necessitates that once something is established as true, it's true. Proving it twice doesn't do any good. It does however waste incredible amounts of time for people debunking your nonsense. You have a responsibility to decide which of these is the one that convinces you and defend that. Having more proofs actually makes your logical point weaker by suggesting that you're using rhetorical tactics rather than trying to genuinely make a specific meaningful assertion. Ikanreed (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

5 arguments isn't a lot.. The moral argument convinces me the most. Pitzy (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone take William Lane Craig seriously anymore? I've seen his ass get handed to him every time he tries to talk about science or cosmology with anyone who knows what they're talking about. At least in my mind he hardly seems better than your run of the mill creationist who clings to dead arguments after hundreds of refutations. Samstr (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool...I don't take Darwinism seriously. Or Oprah. Pitzy (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Explain to me[edit]

The need to "prove" the existence of God.

If you have faith, you have faith. And that should be enough; it takes no faith to believe in something that has been empirically proven, like gravity, the sun coming up every morning, evolution, the quadratic formula, etc. etc. I don't have faith (in the religious sense of the term) in those things, I know them to be true because the proof is irrefutable.

On the other hand, what makes faith faith is the risk involved. We don't know that God is real, so belief in God implies a certain risk, a willingness to commit to something for no other reason than a strongly-held belief. Arguably, if you have that bent, that willingness to commit to something in the total absence of proof what makes faith beautiful (and if you don't have that bent, that's what makes it foolish....). By looking for empirical proof, you are shifting the divine to the realm of the mundane -- and it's not divine anymore, so why bother with it? AgingHippie (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, their is never going to be a billboard that says "God is real" or an equation of idea that proves God is real. On the other hand, I don't think there is one that says he is not real. Because, that would take the Faith out of Christianity. Of course, God is still showing that he is real.Your alive, as one example.

And he reaizes that the people blind enough not to admit life had a creator...Will not die happily. Their we go. But, I still insist on bringing these up just so that in the future when I talk to real life athiests I can make a case. Pitzy (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You might make your case better by learning how to use common words like "their," and "your." I would offer you a more substantive reply, but what you wrote here makes no sense whatsoever. AgingHippie (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry America's school system isn't properly educating teenagers. Pitzy (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
As long as there are christians, there's going to be billboards saying god is real .
And I guess as long as there are atheists there are going to be billboards saying he isn't.
And, of course, there's no direct evidence dragons aren't real either. Or leprechauns. Or invisible pink unicorns. Because non-existence doesn't leave evidence. It leaves nothing. Ikanreed (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC) The default position is disbelief till there is proof. Unless you believe anything that is presented as true until evidence is presented that shows it is not true. Your choice I guess. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I so want to muddy the waters here, and discuss a priori versus a postiori knowledge and special pleading and all the other things you already know about, but I know it won't make the debate better. Ikanreed (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"Of course, God is still showing that he is real.Your alive, as one example." - Pitzy, you need to pace yourself if you want to carry on being the wiki's happenin', new wannabe fly-in-the-ointment. When you started out, I just assumed you had never bothered to read into any arguments against your position. Barely literate nonsense like the quoted statement now makes me think you've never bothered to read at all. Grumblejaws (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't know that life happened by chance Pitzy (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We call that a Straw man 'round these parts, good sir. Also, indent your friggin' posts, boy! Space Turbo (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


Here's my take on the arguments (admittedly I only glossed over them):

  • Argument 1 & 2: Cosmological arguments are pretty much the same in that they all argue that the universe had a cause (which doesn't seem too unreasonable) but then out of nowhere they assume that this cause must be the same thing as some creator deity described in old manuscripts of dubitable authenticity.
  • Objective morality argument: Humans are physically incapable of perceiving reality objectively, morality is no exception to this. Even if we go by the assumption that there is such a thing as objective morality, similarly as with cosmological arguments, there is no obvious reason why the "source" of objective morality would happen to be the particular deity you happen to worship. In fact, there are several very good reasons why a great deal of worshipped deities wouldn't be applicable as sources of objective morality.
  • Fine-tuning argument: It might be pretty presumptive to posit that a kind of sentient life could impossibly form except in the kind of universe we're familiar with. But let's go with the idea that a universe permitting the existence of life is a very unlikely feature; we only need to posit the existence of universes besides our own and the occurrence of life-permitting universes quickly changes from highly unlikely to almost inevitable. Some may claim that the existence of a creator deity is a simpler explanation than the existence of a great many universes besides our own; but the notion that a timeless/eternal deity would only create 1 universe is in fact logically preposterous.
  • Ontological argument: Just because you can imagine an ideal entity with the property of existing in every reality doesn't mean that that entity is suddenly gonna start existing. This is evidenced by our reality not being overrun with people's idealized fantasies. (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of the arguments[edit]

Most of the arguments, whatever their validity, strike me as irrelevant. The question isn't so much whether a generic deity exists; the real question is whether a deity similar to the one worshipped by human religions exists; and if so which one.

The proofs, if they prove anything, prove the necessary existence of an entity that matches one attribute of the deities of historical religion. That isn't enough. Why would you expect the uncaused first cause to listen to your prayers? Why would you expect a greatest possible being to pay any attention to you? - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 16:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you're coming from a (rationalist) Christian perspective, and trying to help Pits Brazil along on that path, but establishing the existence of a generic deity would be a logically necessary prerequisite for demonstrating a specific one. These proofs fail at that task. Ikanreed (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)f

I agree. Honestly, I realize all of these arguments don't prove God's existence, except for perhaps the moral argument. Yuu have me covered on all the bases, and I don't honestly know how someone would be convinced God exists due to your dissecting these arguments. Got to give your props, you have me a knifepoint... I guess the only thing I can tell you now is too read the Bible. It is the living word of God, and I feel like all of you would benefit from buying a Bible and reading, once at least. Doesn't cost much. A dollar or two. Perhaps their is no way to prove God with words, maybe the only way is too have Faith. To believe what you can't see... Perhaps you should try to say a prayer, to open your eyes, if you don't I will :) Anyway, that's all. You win. Of course, you haven't proven he DOESN'T exist, you just have prevented some premises from being true. Pitzy (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Big question then, why would you conclude with the existence of a deity (a Christian one, even) despite the shakiness of the evidence of one? Would it not be more reasonable to conclude that one may not exist? Space Turbo (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)