An objection asks why two supposed independent sovereigns would necessarily disagree at every moment. The capacity to disagree does not itself prove that destruction occurs in every case. Still, if genuine conflict is possible, the concept of two equally unrestricted and undefeated powers raises a fundamental difficulty.
The first logical caution is possible disorder is not actual disorder. The second concern is metaphysical: what would two equal and independent necessary beings mean as the ultimate ground of one actual universe?
Criticisms can therefore target a particular formulation of a theological proof without attacking the doctrine of divine unity itself. Maintaining that distinction makes the debate more precise.