 Arnauld claims to know that “Malebranche’s account of how God acts for reasons … treats God as a finite being – and this makes his account unacceptable and false” (p. 29). But that leaves open the question of whether God acts for reasons in some other way. On Strencil’s interpretation, Arnauld says that we cannot know the answer. If Stencil is right about Arnauld’s agnosticism, then the most that Nadler’s evidence can show is that for Arnauld it is “beyond our epistemic means” to say that God does, or that He does not, act for reasons. As for the passages cited by Moreau in which Arnauld refuses to deny that God acts for reasons, they do not affirm that God does not act for reasons, but simply refuse to deny what we cannot know to be false.