You have a basic misapprehension here. Boundlessness of essense is not compatible with ennumeration.
Besides, if a hypothetical God 45 and God 99 are each boundless in their perfect essense, they are thus one and the same in essense. Identical in every way.
As a limited analogy, would 2 blocks really be 2 distinct entities if they had they same molecules in the same coordinates, with all features the same? No.
From
Theology and Sanity:
The word INFINITY is built from the Latin words FINIS, a limit or boundary,
and the prefix IN which negatives the main word.
Thus it means without limits or boundaries, limitless, boundless.
But this must not be taken as meaning only the absence of any external boundaries.
To say that a being is infinite does not mean only that it spreads in all directions without any limit, that whether you are considering its being or its power you never reach a point where you must say “thus far and no farther.”
It means the absence of ALL limitations,
not only external BUT INTERNAL AS WELL.
At first sight, this may seem needlessly subtilizing and even meaningless.
Actually it is quite vital to our knowledge of infinity.
When we say that a being is infinite,
we mean not only that there is no limit to what it can do,
but no divisions within itself, no parts.
An infinite being MUST be spirit.
Consider how the fact of having parts is a limitation.
Our own bodies will serve to illustrate.
My body has parts—arms, legs, kidneys, liver, vast numbers of parts.
No part is the whole of me.
Thus my very being is divided up.
No one element in me is me, and no one element in my body is my body.
How limiting this is to my being should be obvious enough:
among other things, it means that parts can be broken off me—fingers and such like;
it means the possibility of that decisive break we call death;
even while I live it means that I take a good deal of holding together.
Its limiting effect upon my power is more obvious still.
The things my body can do are distributed over the various parts of which my body consists. My foot can do one sort of thing, my liver another, my nose another.
Thus my power to act is not concentrated but dispersed.
This means that I cannot perform any particular action without a preliminary bringing together of the various parts of me whose cooperation that particular action requires.
Further, this dispersal of my power means that I cannot do all the things I am capable of doing at any one time;
I cannot at once be playing the violin, writing a letter and building a fire.
There is no need to labour the point.
To have one’s being in parts
is an immense limitation,
and under this limitation
the whole material universe lies.
…
Arguments answered. Next. 
