This letter from Chris, Dr Craig, hello, I'm a Roman Catholic who is very interested in your recent work of Aseity.

In fact I think your anti-realism can be much more amenable to divine simplicity than some may think.

Let me pause at that point and say I agree. divine simplicity than some may think.

Let me pause at that point and say, I agree with him.

You see, if you don't believe that there are abstract objects like properties, for example, then you don't think that things are metaphysically

composed. They might have physical properties like arms and legs and cells and skeleton and

so forth but they're not composed of things like a substance and accidents or

other sorts of metaphysical entities because these sorts of abstract

entities don't exist and and therefore you could say that things are metaphysically simple in that way and in fact that is

what I think I don't think things have ontological or metaphysical constituents it

seems to me that they are simple in that sense.

But that's still a far cry from the full-blown doctrine of simplicity as it plays a role in tomism where God's essence is the act of

being or the act of existing and God is conceived to be pure actuality. That's a

concept of simplicity that's very radical and goes far beyond

this more modest position, which I would defend, that things do not have metaphysical components or constituents.

He says, my question has to do with the seemingly incompatibility between A,

God's being the sole ultimate reality and B the fact that possibilities seem to

face him necessarily let me spell this problem out. If God creates possibilities freely, he still could have

refrained from creating them, in which case they were still possibly created.

Therefore these possibilities as such they were still possibly created.

Therefore these possibilities as such are necessarily possible

since they could possibly exist even if God does not create them.

...