According to the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity, if an intrinsic predication of the form ‘God is F’ is true, then God's F-ness exists and is identical with God. To avoid the absurdity of identifying God with a property, a number of philosophers have proposed that God's F-ness should be interpreted, not as a property God possesses, but as the truthmaker for ‘God is F’, which is God himself. I shall argue that given some plausible assumptions, the truthmaker interpretation would undermine the highly plausible idea that there are ‘natural’ predicates which apply univocally or (at least) analogically to both God and some created beings. The only way in which the advocate of the truthmaker interpretation can avoid this problem is to embrace wholesale radical nominalism (with its own costs). That is to say, the truthmaker interpretation is far more constrained than it might initially appear to be.

根据神圣单纯性的传统教义，如果“上帝是 F”形式的内在断言是真实的，那么上帝的 F-ness存在并且与上帝相同。为了避免将上帝等同于属性的荒谬性，许多哲学家提出，上帝的 F-ness应该被解释为不是上帝拥有的属性，而是作为“上帝是F ”的真理创造者。’，这就是上帝自己。我将争辩说，给定一些似是而非的假设，真理创造者的解释将破坏高度似是而非的想法，即存在明确或（至少）类比地适用于上帝和某些受造物的“自然”谓词。真理制造者解释的倡导者可以避免这个问题的唯一方法是接受彻底的激进唯名论（有其自身的成本）。也就是说，真相制造者的解释比它最初看起来的要受限制得多。