It has been my intention to define what god truly is using today's science. I need an objective opinion as to whether my argument is valid, or if you can point out where the argument is flawed.

There are hundreds of definitions, abilities, attributes, or titles associated with god. But there is only one definition that is logically certain: "Whatever is first in existence is by definition; god". All other definitions, abilities, attributes, or titles were given to god by Men. So we have to deem them as unreliable.

From our present day science, the most accepted explanation for the beginning of existence is the Big Bang. And from that event came Matter.

Matter is eternal. It can't be created or destroyed. It has been with us since the beginning of Time, and will remain after all the stars burn out. Matter is also a "Self Sufficient" entity since it does not have a previous cause for its creation. I understand the objection for the Cosmological Argument. But there is no evidence of anything "Creating" the "Uncreatable", so we have to defer to what we know to exist. Therefore Matter always existed. Matter "Created" the Universe and everything in it. These are all attributes and definitions associated with god.

Therefore Matter is god.

More importantly is the ability of Matter to convert Nonliving Matter into the Biochemical Machines that we call Lifeforms. Complete with the Tools of Survival, and the Mechanism of Evolution to improve the original model. This is evidence of Purpose and Progression.

But the only purpose for a Self Sufficient entity is its own existence. So life is the emergence of god coming into existence. And Evolution is the means by which god strives towards perfection.

Therefore Matter is god. And we are him.

"Whatever is first in existence is by definition; god". All other definitions, abilities, attributes, or titles were given to god by Men. So we have to deem them as unreliable."

My response:

We don't know what existed first and therefore we could hardly describe it as anything close to being first or god of anything. But then we'd also have to understand what you are referring to as first: first chemical reaction, singularity, first radioactive soup, first single-celled organism, first universe, supernatural entities, etc?

This could easily qualify as a False Premise, or Appeal to Common Belief.

Now, If you're referring to the singularity or Big Bang we only have theories about what is beyond the Cosmic Microwave Background and those theories include Quantum tunneling, String theory, Multi universes, Hawking's radiation, etc. - ultimately we do not know whether our universe is first or merely part of a much older universe, or even one of many multiverses. So the concept of First here is as "unreliable" as any other attribute you might assign to it.

We just don't know whether the concept of first or beginning is even relevant. It's just as likely that our universe is eternal and the whole concept of beginning and end are false concepts. As for the Big Bang or inflation, the great physicist Victor Stenger explains " we don't even know whether it was very big or even much a bang." It could just be a roiling mass of primordial soup that intensified for billions of years. So it would seem once again you're relying on a limited and perhaps obsolete set of concepts to confirm your own confirmation biases.

You go on to claim:

"Matter is eternal. It can't be created or destroyed. It has been with us since the beginning of Time, and will remain after all the stars burn out. Matter is also a "Self Sufficient" entity since it does not have a previous cause for its creation. But there is no evidence of anything "Creating" the "Uncreatable", so we have to defer to what we know to exist. Therefore Matter always existed. Matter "Created" the Universe and everything in it. These are all attributes and definitions associated with god. Therefore Matter is god."

Whoa, that's quite a huge non-sequitur, and special pleading. I'm not sure "But there is no evidence of anything "Creating" the "Uncreatable", so we have to defer to what we know to exist" is even a coherent claim. It seems more like theological mumbo jumbo or Appeal to Gibberish.

If I understand what you're intending to say, let me direct you to Lawrence Krauss who cites many examples of somethings coming from nothing. (Creating" the "Uncreatable? ) (See A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawren... www.amazon.com/dp/1451624. . . via @amazon)

Your theory is a stretch on so many levels, but especially the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means, literally, “after this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it was caused by it. This fallacy is closely related to the cum hoc fallacy.

To assume matter is first and therefore created the universe and everything in it is god - is pure pseudo science. Matter is not self-sufficient as you claim, but interacts with numerous forces such as weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces, and gravity (See The Standard Model of Particles, and these forces greatly determine how matter behaves. We also have the newly discovered action of Dark Matter on the universe, but we still don't know a great deal of how it works and until we do it would be ludicrous to assume it is a god or supernatural primal force.

Your claim reminds me of what was done to Peter Higg's discovery of the Higg's Boson when he published his findings. He was asked, "Why God particle?, and he replied, "The publisher wouldn't let me call it THE GODDAMN PARTICLE though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing.” Haha!

(See Atheist scientist admits he doesn’t believe in ‘god particle’ richarddawkins.net/2013/0. . . via @Richard Dawkins Foundation

I missed my editing window and didn't have time to amend the above to Peter Higgs' and Higgs boson.

But there is only one definition that is logically certain: "Whatever is first in existence is by definition; god".

This is not logically certain. This is just another definition of god. This would be a premise in a syllogism to define god as logically certain:

P1: Whatever is first in existence is by definition; god
P2: Something had to be first in existence
C: Therefore, god is logically certain.

P1 is just the way you choose to define god, so one can either accept or reject that. P2 is very problematic, because (currently) nobody can know if something was "first" in "existence". Therefore, we can't even get close to C.

All other definitions, abilities, attributes, or titles were given to god by Men. So we have to deem them as unreliable.

I assuming you are a man and you gave god the above definition. So...

Conversely, men also gave definitions to everything has has a definition. We would then have to conclude that everything is "unreliable," which brings us to a kind of extreme skepticism.

From our present day science, the most accepted explanation for the beginning of existence is the Big Bang. And from that event came Matter.

Admittedly, I am might not be up to date on cosmology, but as far as I recall, we know absolutely nothing about where or what the Big Bang "came from" or if it came from anything (begging the question).

... stopping there. But the common question when someone defines god that would be completely unfamiliar to any god people believe, why bother calling it "god" and confuse things?

By similar fallacious reasoning one might claim.

P1: God is omniscient and present from the beginning and throughout Creation.
P2: The Universe is 99.1 percent lethal radiation.
C: Therefore, God is lethal radiation

John, I think you can start to see how your argument collapses from the opening sentence:

"It has been my intention to define what god truly is by using today's science."

Okay, fine. Unfortunately, this is more of a task for theology or religious fiction than actual scientific methodology. Moreover, you're essentially issuing a mission statement to prove pre 6th Century BCE mythological pseudoscience through 21st Century science. (Hey, go for it! Let me know when you can show the genetic evolution of unicorns while you're at it).

Most responsible theologians and scientists adopt the Kipling creed: OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. Or, as Stephen Jay Gould described it as NOMA ("Nonoverlapping Magisterial" Natural History 106 (March): 16–22 and 60-62.)

So, right off the bat you're revealing a fundamental misunderstanding between the functions and goals of both science and religion. You confirm this later in your admission "An impossible task given the knowledge available from 5000 or more years ago. My purpose is to see if "a god" exists with the knowledge we possess today."

Your basic premise is akin to looking for cooking recipes in an auto mechanics manual. As Lawrence Krauss writes: Science is a method for distinguishing fact from fiction. In other words science doesn't so much prove things, but disproves and gradually eliminates all other possibilities through predictability, gathering evidence, and successful replication.

In so much as cosmology and evolution are concerned science has shown quite conclusively that a creator god is not only unnecessary, but an extremely inelegant proposition. And yet your opening statement relies disastrously upon appeals to belief and assumptions that are not proven. On their face, they only Appeal to Belief, Loaded Questions, and infinite circular reasoning -ALL Logically problematic equations.

To express your view in a syllogism it might look like this:

P1. God is the essence of all knowledge. (Appeal to Belief)
P2: Science is a methodology for obtaining knowledge (true)
C: Therefore, science is capable of obtaining knowledge of God's existence and purpose (Deception)

The first claim not only assumes a compatibility between science and religion, but assumes that scientific methodology is equal to theological inquiries. (False equivalence)

See Dr. Bo's description" False Equivalence

Description: An argument of claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.

Logical Form:

Thing 1 and thing 2 both share characteristic A.
Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal.