The following Ontological Argument is taken from my draft book (see Preview at religiouspluralism.ca). The prime assumption of metaphysics is that there must be some perfect systematic unity or there would be nothing (probably not even chaos). That perfect systematic unity is what we call the highest being or God, and there can only be one being in that position – One God.
The early Greek philosophers were obsessed with the question of ontology (what exists). Is reality one thing or many things? More recently, Kant and Hegel maintained that there must be some organizing principle of coherence, some synthesis of thesis and antithesis. Thus, the solution to the ancient ontological problem of the “one and the many” is their synthesis in the “all,” and the triunity of one, many, and all may be conceived as an archetype for expressing the Trinity of One God in abstract terms – the Deity Absolute, the Universe Absolute Supreme Being, and the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of All That Is.
The idea of One God present in the three counter-balancing coordinates of the Trinity Absolute may be the first adequate and only necessary metaphysical vehicle for the creation of anything and everything, including the Trinity itself, out of nothing more than the ‘force’ of pure and practical reason.
Apparently, about 14 billion years ago the divine potential of this Trinity became so supercharged with energy that it exploded into actuality, and began to expand into the universe of universes as we know it.
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I think this approach is futile. Every particular religious persuasion has objections. So rather than unifying them all you have simply created one more. Take, for instance, an objection based on the first principle of Taoism. Verse One of the Tao Te Ching states “The Tao that can be understood cannot be the primal, or cosmic, Tao, just as an idea that can be expressed in words cannot be the infinite idea.” Therefore, your understanding of ultimate reality is mere speculation.
They postulated that which lies beyond shapes and features, the greatest that has nothing beyond itself. They reasoned that, since there can be nothing beyond it, it cannot be an actual object of thought or experience.
I can’t agree with their reasoning. Anything can be given a name. If it has no components or constituency other than itself, that can merely be stated.
Anything can be given a name. But the Tao is not a thing. The Tao has no components or constituency nor self. They recognized that some would consider this nonsense. It’s the paradox of naming “nothing”. Odysseus tricked the Cyclops by naming himself “Nobody”. But, anyway, my point was that they would have their particular reasons for rejecting Samuel Stuart Maynes’ system even though he accepts them into it on his website. Likewise the other religions he includes. I suppose it is problem that syncretistic systems face.
what is the big deal…why is it so important about this god thing…the most important issue is our survival…we need to pay attention to what humans can do to survive…
To surrender would mean giving up the unique essence of their own religion. Like Christians, for instance. All they have to do is surrender Jesus as the be-all and end-all of their religion and they can be part of Maynes’ religious. But that proposition is an anathema to them. The ancient one’s became martyrs to resist such a proposition