And what if not all disjuncts are settled?

Will there be a sea battle tomorrow?

What if future contingents do not all have truth values?

What if the future choices of free agents are not settled until the choices are made?

If the choices of free agents - God included - help settle what world we are in, rather than the other way around?

Things we can never know we can merely believe, unless we can abstain.

And if we cannot abstain are we not committed to faith?

So much more is faith than people realize, especially liberal cheerleaders for physicalism and natural sciences.

That's not going to work.

Job, 13:3 ff

But I would speak to the Almighty; I wish to reason with God.

If somehow it makes sense it's reason.

If it doesn't it's got to be faith.

Or despair.

But is it true?

The human hope in God, in Providence, in Karma, or in whatever it is, is that it will all be all right in the end.

The unbroken circle. Universalism. Karma leading everyone home.

That we are not abandoned, that nothing is lost, that no one is broken forever beyond salvation or repair.

And who could plausibly deny that such a thing, or such things, could be true, even absent any particularly convincing picture of what it or they might actually be like?

But are they?

Or is any of them?

Somehow?

a contingentia mundi

What need not exist cannot and would not unless made to do so by something that cannot not exist.

Alternatively, only what cannot not exist can exist without being made to do so by something other than itself that cannot not exist.

A crucial premise in any argument for the existence of God a contingentia mundi.

Contemporary atheism supposes it is false, and that to the contrary contingent things, a whole world of contingent things, or a contingent (possible but not necessary) world can exist without being made to do so by anything necessary.

(Some put the point by saying existence is de trop or absurd.)

Or at any rate they refuse to believe otherwise absent proof.

But if you can prove everything you're going in a circle, someone wise once said.

And anyway nobody can prove most of the philosophically interesting - indeed crucial - claims by which we live.

People who go in for that sort of thing might even claim the thing is epistemologically basic.

Another age would have said self-evident.

Plantinga once suggested the existence of God, itself, be regarded as epistemologically basic.

That might be a bridge too far.