We argue that there is a conflict among classical theism's commitments to divine simplicity, divine creative freedom, and omniscience. We start by defining key terms for the debate related to classical theism. Then we articulate a new argument, the Aloneness Argument, aiming to establish a conflict among these attributes. In broad outline, the argument proceeds as follows. Under classical theism, it's possible that God exists without anything apart from Him. Any knowledge God has in such a world would be wholly intrinsic. But there are contingent truths in every world, including the world in which God exists alone. So, it's possible that God (given His omniscience) contingently has wholly intrinsic knowledge. But whatever is contingent and wholly intrinsic is an accident. So, God possibly has an accident. This is incompatible with classical theism. Finally, we consider and rebut several objections.

我们认为，古典有神论对神圣的简单性、神圣的创造自由和无所不知的承诺之间存在冲突。我们首先定义与古典有神论相关的辩论的关键术语。然后我们阐明了一个新的论点，孤独论点，旨在建立这些属性之间的冲突。概括地说，论证如下进行。在古典有神论下，上帝可能在没有任何东西的情况下存在。上帝在这样一个世界中拥有的任何知识都是完全内在的。但是每个世界都有偶然的真理，包括只有上帝存在的世界。因此，上帝（鉴于他的无所不知）有可能拥有完全内在的知识。但凡是偶然的和完全内在的都是偶然的。所以，上帝很可能出事了。这与古典有神论是不相容的。最后，我们考虑并反驳了几个反对意见。