 If the defender of DDS is driven to mysterianism, many will consider this a desperate jump from the frying pan into the fire. Dolezal, for example, holds that God must be both simple and libertarianly free to be absolute despite the apparent contradiction. How God can be both simple and free must remain a mystery. William Hasker balks: “This won’t do, of course” (2016, 19). His “of course” is of course a bit of bluster, but one feels his pain. “The argument Dolezal has given quite straightforwardly entails that the doctrine of divine simplicity is false …” (2016, 19). This is not an unreasonable thing to say, but is it compelling? Does it force a rational person to abandon DDS? Is it so compelling that DDS can be dismissed as a mistake, a correctable error in reasoning that one falls into due, perhaps, to inattention to certain obvious truths? Not quite.