Question: 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.

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.