ABSTRACT This paper critiques the "proof paradigm, " a contemporary argument that uses Gödel-Tarski limitative theorems to suggest a class of truths remains 'necessarily unprovable' even for an omniscient God, positing a metaphysical divide between truth and provability. We contend this argument is susceptible to a fundamental category error: it projects 'proof'—understood as a finite, discursive, and system-relative creaturely epistemic tool—univocally onto the divine intellect. In response, we propose a constructive theological epistemology through a synthesis of two frameworks. Divine Simplicity, the classical doctrine that God's knowledge is a simple, eternal, and causative act identical with His essence, challenges the applicability of discursive 'proof' to divine cognition. Structural Axiology, formalized via Category Theory, models the content of this simple knowledge as involving a sovereign choice among incommensurable value categories (CW1: Redemptive Struggle, CW2: Perfect Harmony, CW3: Immanent Secular Virtue). Our synthesis thereby recontextualizes the limitative results: Gödelian incompleteness is interpreted as describing a structural feature intrinsic to certain created logical orders (notably CW3), rather than necessarily representing a constraint on divine cognition itself. This contributes to the development of a post-proof theological epistemology, which seeks to recalibrate pivotal debates by offering an alternative to Leibnizian optimization models of divine freedom, proposing a theistic interpretative framework for mathematics, and reframing the problem of evil within the paradigm of Redemptive Struggle.
Yohanes Yohanes (Sun,) studied this question.