In earlier articles, the fact of God's existence was established as having the same authenticity as scientific laws. It was also argued that faith and reason are compatible faculties which a human being can exercise without any internal contradiction. One can believe in the existence of God without having to commit intellectual suicide. The next obvious question that should concern us would be the nature of the Absolute whose existence is inescapable. The answer to this question would determine everything else in life such as meaning and purpose of one's existence, origin and destiny of all creation, basis for the pursuit of knowledge etc. I would like to name this Absolute as God for the purpose of our discussion. For the sake of clarity in thinking, I propose to sub-divide this question into four sub-questions:
1. Is there one God or are there many Gods?
2. Is this God personal or impersonal?
These two questions deal with contradictories. That is, if one alternative is true, then the other is false.
3. Is God transcendent or immanent?
4. Is He an absolute unity or a plurality in unity?

These two questions deal with contraries or antinomies. The two alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive but how they combine is not always self-evident. Let us take the first sub-question - Is there one God or are there many Gods? Belief in one God is known as monotheism and belief in many gods is called polytheism.
Many cultures and nations in this world have believed in many gods. Very often this belief has evolved from the worship of various forces (deification) of nature. Over a period of time, these forces of nature were personified. The universe being so vast and diverse with its tremendous display of raw power in terms of natural phenomena, it was reasonable to expect that it was inhabited by a large host of deities, each assuming responsibility for a particular force of nature. And so a polytheist believed that there was a multiplicity (two or more gods) which existed in the world and influenced events in it. Very often polytheists deny that an infinite God exists beyond the universe.
Fundamentally, polytheism faces a definitional obstacle. An obstacle, by definition, has to be one. It is impossible to think of a multiplicity of absolutes. It is a contradiction in terms. Because of this, the gods of polytheism have to be necessarily finite and one would have to look behind these gods for the actual infinite reality. There are two alternative possibilities which need to be examined to decide whether belief in polytheism can be true and valid at all.

Firstly, if there is no ultimate infinite God behind and beyond the finite gods of the universe, then nature itself becomes ultimate. One would be driven to the conclusion that nature itself created these gods. Nature itself would thus be ultimate and the universe eternal. This is nothing but the atheistic position which holds that nature is the only and ultimate frame of reference. Thus polytheism, according to this possibility, becomes another form of atheism. It has already been argued, both from philosophical and scientific considerations, that it is not possible to sustain the idea of an infinite universe. Philosophically, if the universe were infinite in the space-time continuum, one cannot arrive at an actual present in time. In order to do so, one would have to cross an infinite past which, of course, is impossible. From a scientific point of view, the second law of thermodynamics and proofs of an expanding universe have put paid to the idea of an infinite universe. For the polytheist, to hold that nature is ultimate and created the finite gods is not a tenable position.

The second alternative to be examined is that of a supernatural First Cause Who stands behind the finite gods of polytheism. The only viable answer is that one of the gods of the universe created the others, or that there is an Infinite God who created nature as well as the other gods. In this case, polytheism collapses into monotheism. (It may be seen that polytheism is a non-viable intellectual position which cannot be held independently - sooner or later, it has to merge with either atheism or monotheism). Is there one God or many gods? Belief in one God is a sounder intellectual proposition than belief in many gods. The Bible says in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth". The Bible makes this categorical statement in favour of a monotheistic God, a God who created other gods, powers, authorities, dominions and regional hierarchies in the spiritual and material realms.

We now take up the second sub-question - "Is this one God personal or impersonal?" In other words, "Is the infinite frame of reference non-personal or does it provide a basis for the human being with his intellectual, emotional and moral dimensions?" In Indian Vedantic philosophy, the case is being made out strongly in favour of an impersonal infinite God. The universe (inorganic matter, plant life, animals and humans) is an extension of this impersonal infinite Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma, the personal god of creation in Hindu polytheism). According to this view, all reality is one, and the diversity that we see in nature is illusory. Thus no significance is to be attributed to the diversity of nature and the personality exhibited by the human race which is an illusory (and inferior) manifestation of the Ultimate Impersonal Reality. This philosophy is called Pantheism (all is [impersonal] god) and underlies the various practices of the New Age movement.
But can this definition of God be really true? If it is , all intellectual, emotional and moral dimensions are doomed to extinction. Questions like the meaning of life (intellect) will have to go without an answer. Feelings of pain and pleasure (emotions) will not have any significant difference. One should not even attempt to make a (moral) distinction between good and bad. On the basis of these three issues of intellect, emotions and will, one cannot but conclude that the infinite frame of reference point has to be Personal.
The two sub-questions just considered involve two mutually exclusive entities. Either God is one or there are many gods. Either He is personal or He (or It) is impersonal. We have argued for One Infinite-personal God. The next two sub-questions deal with antinomies.

Let us take up the third question of the transcendence and/or the immanence of God. It would be necessary to understand these two technical terms. God's transcendence is the quality of His existence beyond the universe. It also means that the universe is not an extension of His essence. On the other hand, His immanence refers to His involvement in the daily function of His creation. While discussing the existence of God, it was concluded from macro-cosmic considerations that the universe as a physical entity had come into being at one particular instant popularly called the 'big bang'. Scientists are convinced that the laws operating at the moment of creation are outside the scope of normal scientific investigation. It must be obvious that this material world which suddenly came into existence had originated from nothing material. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the material universe came to be from what is non-material. We also know from physics that matter (and space) and time are part of one continuum. The origin of the space-time universe in which we live has to be from outside of it. The Cause behind the universe is non-spatial and non-temporal. Because we live in a space-time universe, it would be right to say that the Creator is outside of it, i.e., He is transcendent. He must be Spirit (transcending matter) and eternal (transcending time).
But the question must be raised, "Is this God only transcendent?" There is a school of thought that has tried to consistently hold that God is only transcendent and He has no concern for the universe which He created. This belief is called Deism. Many eminent Americans such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson belonged to this school. They considered God as an absentee-landlord, a divine watchmaker who wound up the clock of the Universe and has allowed it to unwind according to certain natural laws. They do not believe that He is interested in it and thus rule out miracles as impossible. Miracles, according to this view, would be necessary only if God would be involved enough in the affairs of the universe to regulate it by personal intervention should anything go wrong. Desim, as a world view suffers from certain innate contradictions. It allows for the miracle of creation but does not have room for other miracles. It acknowledges an infinite-personal God but cannot believe in His concern for creation. Deism, therefore is not a tenable position to hold.

What then are the alternatives available to us? In order to avoid the self-contradiction of Deism, we have to hold that god is deeply committed to and involved in His creation. The Bible describes Him as the one Who "sustain(s) all things by His powerful word." (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus, the Word of God is the one "in (Whom) all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17). Psalm 104 is entirely devoted to the immanence of God Who is said to be involved in every facet of nature. On the basis of all the considerations detailed above, one is inexorably drawn to the conclusion that the infinte-personal God is both transcendent and immanent. Before we move to the next sub-question, it should be recognised that some people hold the view that God is only immanent and choose to deny His transcendence. As already noted in the discussion of the Personality of God, the pantheist makes the claim that God is the only reality. The logical extension of this position is that God is in me and in every part of the universe. In their view, I myself am God and it is only as a part of an all-pervasive illusion (maya), I think I am a particular individual. If I submit myself to a paradigm shift by certain techniques like yoga and meditation, I would come to realise that I myself am God and thus am part of the infinite impersonal reality. I have therefore infinite potential in me. This is a very important position held by many philosophers of the advaita (or non-dualistic or monistic) school. The teacher who distilled the advaita essence from Vedantic writings (the Upanishads) was Sankara (788-820 A.D.). More recently, philosophers like Swami Vivekananda and Dr. S. Radhakrishnan propounded modified versions of advaita Vedanta.
Let us briefly see the consequences of the belief that God is only immanent and not transcendent. First of all, if we take this view, we have to come to the conclusion that the Creator and the creation are one. The corollary is tat cause and effect are the same and there is no linear relationship linking cause to effect. Secondly, if creation and Creator are the same, then ultimate reality will turn out to be one. The variety and the diversity that we see in this universe of ours will have lost their meaning. We may have to conclude diversity is only an illusion and therefore of no final significance. If one holds this view, then a chemistry experiment, for instance, 'Zinc + sulphuric acid = zinc sulphate = hydrogen' would be meaningless. The four entities in this equation would ultimately be the same and their difference has no significance. Also, there would not be any basis for a real knowledge of illusion. Why, the definition of illusion itself may be an illusion! No scientific progress would be possible if we do not give significance to the variety of this world. Thirdly, at the moral level, no final difference would exist between good and evil. No moral judgement will ultimately be valid. Fourthly, at the social level, there would be no significance for relationships if all reality were one. All of civilisation would reason on the shifting sands of illusion. Belief in immanence alone without an anchor in the transcendence of God will give the lie to all that makes for civilised existence.

The simplest illustration for transcendence-immanence relationship between a painter and his painting. When you look at a painting, if you are artistically inclined, you will be able to deduce the character of the painter. You would go so far as to say that the painter is in the painting because his personality is indelibly imprinted in his handiwork. But you would not deny the fact that the painter has an existence of his won outside that of the painting. The painter transcends the painting while he is immanent in his painting. There is no contradiction in this position. Similarly, the transcendent self-existent Creator, can without contradiction, be immanent in His marvellous creation.
Thanks brings us to the fourth and last of our sub-questions of what God is like. Is God a mathematical unity or is there a plurality in His personality? Two of the great monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, hold that God is absolutely one and any kind of plurality within His being is tantamount to blasphemy. We shall proceed to attempt an answer to this question at three levels -
(i) the nature of creation as a commentary on the nature of the Creator,
(ii) the moral perfection of the Creator in Himself, and (iii) the Creator as the frame of reference to all truth.
(i) If we look at the whole of nature, one cannot but observe an exhilarating contrast and diversity. This has already been stated in various contexts. But one cannot afford to miss the unity which underlies this diversity. The simple example would be sunlight which is white to the naked eye. But if you put it through a prism, you would see the seven colours which make up the sunlight. So we find that sunlight in one sense is unity in diversity. The human race presents a beautiful mosaic of variety behind which one perceives the unity of humanness. In terms of physics and chemistry, the entire multiplicity of organic and inorganic entities in the universe would reduce to the unity of subatomic existence common to all. What shall we conclude from these observations? If there is unity and diversity in creation there should be unity in diversity in the Creator. Otherwise, either the unity or the diversity will prove to be an illusion. It is reasonable to suppose that God who is the ultimate cause must also in Himself enshrine a unity in diversity. An absolute unity in the cause cannot produce the diversity that we see in the effect. The unity in diversity if it is seen in the effect should be seen in the cause also. So we are forced to draw the conclusion that God in His eternal being has to be in some sense a plurality while at the same time and in a different sense He exists as a unity.
(ii) Let us approach the question of unity in diversity from a moral perspective. A university student from Delhi, a girl, posed a brilliant question to me after I had concluded a Bible study on the attributes of God. She said, "You Christians say that God is absolutely good. How can goodness be absolute when evil is not absolute?" Now she knew that Christianity held the view that evil was not absolute (infinite) because evil had a beginning and would have an end. She also understood goodness as the opposite of evil. She was actually rephrasing a statement made by the French philosopher Baudelaire - "If there is a God, he must be the devil". That means goodness and evil are equal and opposite qualities which have to exist in the one who is the origin of all things. There can be only one answer to this question which would support the view that good can exist by itself without its opposite, evil. If goodness has to be absolute, it has to be a perfect expression of virtue. The highest of virtues is love which is impossible without relationship. Love can be an innate attribute of God only when a relationship is possible within God Himself without dependence on creation. If God were an absolute unity, He would not be able to have love within Himself. It would have remained as a potential in Him and not an actuality. So in one sense, we (creation) would have helped God find His perfection by being the object of His love! This of course is absolute nonsense. We have to reach the unavoidable conclusion that within God there has to be a plurality - a Subject (Father) Who loves, an Object (Son) Who is loved (John 1:24) and a Medium (Holy Spirit) through Whom that love is communicated (Romans 5:5). This combined with the unity of the Essence of God is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
(iii) The third necessity for plurality in the Godhead is the nature of truth. Truth is the characteristic of a proposition. No proposition is meaningful unless it is part of a communication. For example, we cannot discuss whether a thought is true because it is within the subjective consciousness of the person. When the thought is objectivised by a proposition, then and then alone truth considerations can enter the scene. Here again, no communication is intrinsically possible and meaningful unless Ultimate Reality (God) is a plurality with similar subject, object, medium connotations. Genesis 1 is a chapter of divine communication (not soliloquy) climaxing in the Trinitarian decision to create humankind (v. 26). Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude that the God Who exists has to be an Infinite, Personal and Triune Being. When the Bible states that God is love (1 John 4:16), it is making a statement which is logically consistent. Reason can bring us so far as to see that there has to be a plurality within the Godhead. Reason, however, will have to remove its shoes and fall down in worship before this Triune God because it is only by divine revelation in Scripture that we understand to some extent how mysteriously the three persons of the Godhead relate to One Another.