Classical Theism (c. 140–37 BCE)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

A watercolor triptych presents the sacred symbols of Abrahamic Religions in watercolor, the Menorah, Cross and Crescent Moon and Star. The impressionist technique softens every boundary between panels as if the pigments themselves remember a common origin, each symbol complete in its own frame yet impossible to see in isolation—a meditation on three faiths tracing their lineage to one father, rendered with reverence by Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

The core ontological claim of Classical Theism, as Abrahamic Monotheism, is that a single, transcendent, omnipotent God is the sole, uncreated source of all existence, which is created ex nihilo and sustained by divine will. This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality as the primordial condition of being, without requiring a prior, single unity. Where Abrahamic Monotheism derives all multiplicity from a pre-existing, Supreme Being whose will grounds reality—the CoD posits that the unity and multiplicity of reality co-arise simultaneously within the universally observed process primitive itself: the conference of difference. This comparison contributes to the overall thesis by demonstrating how the CoD offers a non-theistic, process-oriented alternative to classical creationist metaphysics, resolving the philosophical tension inherent in deriving a dynamic, relational world from a fundamentally single and immutable source.

II. Overview of Abrahamic Monotheism

Abrahamic Monotheism, encompassing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, provides a metaphysical framework that has profoundly shaped Western thought. Its historical context has parallels with ancient West Asian Zoroastrianism, culminating in the radical assertion of a single, personal God distinct from and sovereign over creation. Its core principle is divine oneness (tawhid in Islam, Shema in Judaism) and creation by divine fiat out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). The key mechanism is the absolute will of a transcendent God who, as the necessary being, voluntarily brings contingent being into existence from nothingness and continuously upholds it.

In Classical Thesim: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• Regarding primacy-of-existence: God’s being is uniquely primary and self-sufficient, while the existence of the cosmos is wholly derivative and dependent.
• Regarding manner-of-existence: God’s manner of being is eternal, immutable, and simple (without parts), whereas creation’s manner of existence is temporal, changing, and composite.
• Regarding the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: the model begins with an absolute, undifferentiated Unity (God) from which all multiplicity emanates via an act of will. The unity of the created order is therefore secondary, a reflection of its single source rather than a feature inherent to its own ontological structure. This primes the analysis for a direct confrontation with the CoD’s immanent and relational starting point.

III. Overview of the CoD

The CoD model claims that as a 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, a 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together can itself be described as a conference of difference, i.e. a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. Hence, the CoD model claims that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence and thus irreducible in and of itself. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each conceptualization is, in itself, a conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but a constitutive pattern of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent transforms.

IV. Comparison

Criterion 1: Primacy-of-Existence

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a radical divergence on what constitutes the primary ground of existence.
• Abrahamic Monotheism's Position: This model unequivocally assigns primacy to the being of God. God is ipsum esse subsistens (the very act of being itself), the only necessary existence from which all contingent beings receive their reality. Creation is an effect, and its existence is fundamentally borrowed or participated.
• CoD's Position: The CoD radically flattens this hierarchy. Primacy is assigned to the 'conference of difference' itself, which is not a being but the constitutive process of being. As stated in Koan 40.1, God is a construct for the 'unobserved, constant process—the conference of difference—within which all existence is expressed.' Existence is not given by a primary being but is the primary process itself: the conference of difference.
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely technical but foundational. Where Abrahamic Monotheism posits a supreme Entity as primary, the CoD's insistence on a relational process as primary allows it to account for the inherent dynamism and becoming of the universe as the direct expression of reality's core, rather than as a secondary and lesser emanation from a static perfection.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The models present incommensurable views on the fundamental manner in which things exist.
• Abrahamic Monotheism's Position: A strict duality defines the manner of existence. God's manner of being is eternal, simple, and immutable. The created universe's manner of being is temporal, composite, and subject to change and corruption. The chasm between the Creator and creation is absolute in terms of their essential mode of existence.
• CoD's Position: The CoD proposes a unified manner of existence for all that is: dynamic, relational transformation. As Koan 100.1 asserts, existence 'has no beginning or end, only ceaseless transformation'. There is no fundamental distinction between a 'divine' manner of being and a 'created' one; there is only the continuous conference of difference, manifesting everything from particles to persons.
• Interpretive Analysis: The Abrahamic dichotomy between divine stasis and worldly flux is replaced by a monism of process. The CoD reframes what theology calls 'creation' not as a one-time event originating from outside, but as the perpetual, internal dynamic of the cosmos itself. This eliminates the philosophical problem of how a changeless God can act in a changing world.

Criterion 3: Relationship-Between-Multiplicity-and-Unity

• Statement: The most significant divergence emerges on how the one and the many are related.
• Abrahamic Monotheism's Position: Unity is logically and ontologically prior. The model begins with absolute, undifferentiated Unity (God). Multiplicity is a subsequent, willed effect. The unity observed in creation is therefore extrinsic, a reflection of its single source and the harmony imposed upon it by divine law.
• CoD's Position: Multiplicity and unity are co-primordial and mutually constitutive. They arise together via the 'conference of difference'. Koan 100.6 states the mechanism clearly: 'Without difference, there is nothing to relate to; without relation, no potential for transformation—no being'. Unity is not a prior state but an ongoing achievement of conferring: 'bearing together'.
• Interpretive Analysis: The confrontation with Abrahamic Monotheism throws the CoD's commitment to immanent relationality into sharpest relief. Where the classical model must explain how multiplicity emerges from unity, the CoD sidesteps the issue entirely by positing a reality where relationship is the primitive datum. This allows the CoD to model a universe where diversity and interconnection are fundamental, without requiring a transcendent unifier to hold it all together. Think of it not as a hierarchy emanating from one, but as a network where every connection defines the nodes.

V. Implications

The single most important philosophical lesson from this comparison is that a coherent and grounded ontology does not require a transcendent, simple first cause. The Abrahamic model, for all its explanatory power regarding origin and cosmic order, creates a persistent tension between the absolute unity of God and the radical multiplicity and change of the world. The CoD, by contrast, demonstrates that an ontology can be both robust and dynamic by locating the foundational principle within the immanent fabric of relationality itself.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing how it solves a specific problem the historical model cannot easily resolve: the problem of divine action and theodicy. If God is truly immutable and all-powerful, how does God interact with a changing world, and why does evil exist? The CoD dissolves these questions by removing the transcendent actor. In the CoD, 'creation' and its events are not the acts of a divine will but the probabilistic outcomes of the eternal conference of difference. This opens a new line of inquiry into ethics and meaning that is based on co-petition and reciprocal responsibility within the web of existence, rather than on obedience to a transcendent lawgiver.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book