Refuting trinity.

[Mystic]

Aspects are different that what they are attributed to.
As such, God cannot have aspects.

To prove this is quite simple. 

God cannot lack a perfection. And whatever perfection he has must be ultimate. But Ultimate by definition can only be God's Sheer self, ultimate life, as such his perfections are in reality not him, but ways we relate to his one sheer perfect reality, that has no divisions or aspects. For example suppose he had a hand like Wahabis say,  then the hand would be not God, and hence not divine, and God would have non-divine attribute, or he would have an equal, and his hand would be just as ultimate as him, which would make him no so ultimate. Both are absurd. Hence, if God exists, he is One.

His attributes we know of him are different than what he is.  They are brought down angles that we relate to him by but the point to in all that, in whatever aspect we call him by,  is sheer ultimate oneness.

And because the independent by which all depends is God, he cannot beget himself, lest the dependent and himself be equal. And another proof, is if he can eternally beget, he would not have created us, but only beget sons, as that would be the right thing to do from love's perspective.

You may well be right that if there is a God, it is not a Trinity. Your argument is just a pile of assertions that you can't demonstrate to be true, though. There is no contradiction inherent in a universe creator being imperfect, so there goes your whole thing. If there is a God, it may e perfect or it may not (but if it's real, it obviously makes imperfect things, so there's that....). I'd have gone with parsimony as the explanation for why it's reasonable to trim the Trinity down.

Although I think polytheism makes more sense than either. The universe being made by a committee that didn't always agree and had different members with different levels of skill and talent seems to be a better match for the messy cosmos we observe.

 Since Abrahamic faiths believe God is Ultimate, then it's a working ground.

I don't want to debate that premise, since we agree on it. As for proving, I believe I've done so many times, but have realized it's in poetic language and may not be understood by everyone or anyone but a few, these proofs I have offered.