Maq Masi Blog

The nature of divinity—whether singular, plural, transcendent, or immanent—has perennially occupied the frontier of metaphysical thought. This inquiry seeks not dogma but ontological clarity: Is divinity an unconditioned reality, an immanent ground, or an evolving expression? To approach this question rigorously, one must analyse divinity’s relation to being, causality, temporality, and infinity—without collapsing into paradox or evasion.

1. Unity, Plurality, or Multiplicity?

A monadic conception of divinity, as upheld in classical monotheism, defines God as actus purus: pure actuality, free from potentiality, composition, or contingency. Such a being exists a se—its essence is its existence, rendering it metaphysically simple and necessary. However, this very simplicity challenges intelligibility: Can such an entity be relational or knowable if it transcends all predicates?

Pluralist frameworks, in contrast, posit multiple divine entities, each ontologically distinct. Whether as co-equals or hierarchically ordered, such multiplicity introduces limitations. If these entities coexist, they presuppose either a metaphysical ground or a governing principle, which displaces any one god’s ultimacy.

Multipolar theologies—such as Trinitarianism or certain Advaitic readings—attempt to preserve unity in diversity. Yet their coherence hinges on whether distinctions are ontological (entailing dependence) or modal (entailing identity). In either case, internal differentiation appears to weaken aseity.

Hence, any ontological plurality—whether absolute or internal—risks compromising the independence that divinity, by definition, must possess.

2. Causality and Relation: Transcendence or Immanence?

If divinity is causa prima—an uncaused cause—then it initiates all without being affected by what follows. This model preserves transcendence and creatio ex nihilo, yet raises the issue of divine intentionality: Is creation necessitated, or freely willed? Any purposiveness implies a teleological orientation that may challenge divine sufficiency.

Immanentist ontologies, by contrast, identify divinity with the immanent structure of being. Spinoza’s Deus sive Natura captures this: God is the totality of substance and its modes. Yet such a view conflates God with contingency—divinity becomes mutable and coextensive with the cosmos, sacrificing sovereignty for immediacy.

Panentheism attempts a reconciliation: God is both transcendent and immanent, containing the world without being exhausted by it. Yet, the ontological cost is high. If creation is internal to the divine, then God is partially defined by the contingent—a move difficult to reconcile with absolute necessity.

Causal models of divinity invariably lead to ontological entanglement: To cause is to relate. But true aseity precludes relational dependency.

3. Ontogenesis: Self-Created, Emergent, or Eternal?

A self-causing divinity (causa sui) implies temporal paradox: to cause oneself, one must precede oneself, which defies the structure of causality. Emergent theologies fare no better; if God arises from preconditions, then those preconditions are ontologically prior.

A created divinity, meanwhile, is simply not divine in the absolute sense—it becomes subordinate to its origin.

Only eternal necessity remains coherent: God as ipsum esse subsistens, whose essence is to be. This avoids causal regress and preserves ontological independence, but renders divine origin inscrutable. Such a being cannot be explained in terms of becoming, but only as that which is.

4. The Scope of Divine Presence: Immanence, Totality, or Transcendence?

If God is univocally present in all beings, then divinity is coterminous with creation. But this equates God with finitude, which contradicts immutability.

If God encompasses all, as in totalistic metaphysics, the divine becomes a container of being—holding creation without being reducible to it. But this too has cost: it implies that creation modifies the divine, however slightly.

Absolute transcendence, meanwhile, retains ontological purity but at the expense of experiential relevance. The divine becomes wholly other, perhaps even inaccessible.

Each model faces the same dialectic: relation implies limitation; non-relation implies irrelevance. A wholly independent God cannot be simultaneously engaged without compromising its independence.

5. The Act of Creation and Its Ontological Consequences

Creation, if it occurred, must either be necessary or contingent. If necessary, it diminishes divine freedom. If contingent, it implies intention—but intentionality introduces desire, which may entail lack.

The mechanics of creation also matter. If from nothing, omnipotence is preserved. If from pre-existent matter, God is not the absolute origin. If from divine essence (emanation), then God is partially invested in the world and potentially affected by it.

Even in creatio ex nihilo, the mere act of creation introduces a bifurcation: creator and created, the infinite and the finite. Ontologically, this relation is difficult to maintain without infringing on divine simplicity.

6. Infinity and Its Philosophical Limits

Infinity must not be mistaken for quantitative extension, but qualitative plenitude—being without limit or deficiency. However, infinity is conceptually elusive: Does it include all possibilities, even contradiction? Is it static or dynamic? If it encompasses all, does it absorb creation? If it stands apart, how does it relate?

An infinite God must be without boundary yet also without dilution. But this seems to demand a logic beyond finitude—perhaps even beyond being as traditionally conceived.

7. Toward a Philosophical Resolution

This inquiry yields no definitive ontology, but a clear metaphysical structure of tension:

• Singularity ensures aseity but jeopardises relation.

• Plurality invites complexity but undermines ultimacy.

• Creation implies purpose, yet purpose implies desire.

• Immanence ensures intimacy, but at the cost of transcendence.

• Infinity preserves limitlessness but challenges definition.

Perhaps the most philosophically coherent model is apophatic: divinity as beyond being, beyond unity, beyond causality. Not a being among beings, but the enabling condition of being itself. Not known through positive attributes, but through negation—what divinity is not.

In this view, God is not a solution to a metaphysical problem but the horizon against which metaphysical thought unfolds. As such, the divine eludes closure, inviting not certainty but intellectual humility.