I'll give my (probably unneeded) two cents.
If that isn't your reasoning then I would like you to go more in-depth on why you don't want the split. You can answer the points that I've made because if you don't then saying it still works is pointless and I wouldn't count that as sufficient reasoning.
Very well, although some people have already responded to these them, but I wish to respond to some of them in specific.
The main Cosmology is based on the mystical teaching of Kabbalah. J.M. DeMatteis is purely Hinduism as he said the only character from Kabbalah is “Adam K’ad-Mon” which we see that the Primordial Man in Ewing Cosmology is Adam Brasher has much contrast to the former. One’s the archetype for Creation to come while the other is the progenitor of the lineage of men and the guardian of the Nexus in the Flordian swamps.
Both of these aren't mutually exclusive with each other, though. Adam Kadmon can be the archetypal pattern that existence is modeled after, as well as the beginner of the lineage of man (since existence would also include that).
The concept itself is essentially that very idea: the notion that the Divine created man in his image, and that image as the mental image that the Divine models man, as well as his creation after.
DeMatteis himself supports that idea in his stories, such as
here, in which this dialogue defines Adam K’ad-Mon with three interesting qualities: the first thing to exist within the dream (Cleito), a necessary entity that all of creation is contingent upon, and the only thing within the dream to actually know that it is not a real thing (with his lineage losing that knowledge down the line, and falling through the 'illusion' deeper).
So clearly, even in both DeMatteis's stories as well as Ewing's, Adam K’ad-Mon has this archetypal role, as the man that everything within creation originates from, and is contingent on. So painting this as a "A is exclusively X, while B is exclusively Y" is wrong in either ways.
Creation in Ewing Cosmology is a narrative based on Keter(Assiyah) being the final part of the lowest hierarchy. The Divine Creator is meant to be the Paraatma/Parabrahman equivalent which the One Above All isn't the Ein Sof equivalent. Even then Ein Sof and Brahman are not the same beings and from different teachings with different perspectives on the Universe. Kabbalah rejects the teaching that humans are God living in his own creations since that's blasphemous to them.
J.M. DeMatteis bases his story always the same and introduces characters that are incongruent or completely ignored by anyone else. Hence why he never even refers to “One Above All” as a name especially since that said “person” is not actually ineffable, immutable, or unsurpassable.
The Fallen Star fits nowhere since they can't even work in conjunction with the One Above All or else they scale above the entire hierarchy except for the House if we were to introduce them in the main Cosmology.
Also, God is independent of everything hence why he would receive 0 which can't happen if he's one and the same with the One Above All.
The idea that God is unconscious and not interactive but only through Maya, illusions, and his avatars of ages doesn't really link with the One Above All.
God being used as a Magician was a nice analogy that depicts that he made Reality as his trick and all forms of illusion while the One Above All demiurgic fires near the primordial time have no effect on being like the Mother of Horrors.
I personally think the solution to all of these is relatively simple:
the One Above All is not the Divine Creator.
The Divine Creator seems to me like a character that should be identified as whatever the stand-in for the Ein Sof that emanates the Mystery will be in modern, post-Secret Wars Marvel. Since it is clearly something that transcends dualities, identity and differentiation more generally (a monad, or what the new Tier 0's called), in comparison to TOAA who more or less resides in the Keter of Assiyah, and is clearly transcended by other things. I am aware that the wiki currently assumes them to be the same thing, but with the new tiering system, this might not be possible.
Although I should note, I personally don't even think that most of these are actually solid contradictions for reasons that I can elaborate on, if needed.
The basis of Creation in J.M. DeMatteis is not the reincarnation of Creation embodied by Firmaments. Rather it would always come and will end at the end in MahaPralaya and those who do strip the veils hiding the True Creator’s face would ascend into a Golden Age, which is not universally shared by the main Cosmology. The only similarity in that part is the Mystery is a journey to unveil God’s face but Ein Sof is not the same as the Oversoul concept that all Souls are God living in his dream and return into his Oneness and back throughout countless reincarnations until all Souls ascend. This is a completely different view from Kabbalah.
A verse simply doesn't have to jive one-to-one with whatever mystical teachings they're modelling the cosmology after. The idea of unity with God isn't really talked about in the Ewing cosmology, and its definitely not really disallowed or anything. Especially since we essentially know nothing about whoever the Ein Sof stand-in is in Marvel yet.
The origin story starts with God forming an aspect called the Creator in his dream creating duality, and letting his souls have limits from their original existence where they're one with God. This has nothing to do with the main Cosmology.
Accepted here
in this thread, Marvel has a built-in system that already discusses the malleability of creation origin stories in Marvel and how they can coexist, so this isn't inconsistent (its also the thread Alonik was referring to above, since you were asking)
