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.
"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."
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... https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451624468/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_xtdBCbBV3P82A 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’ https://richarddawkins.net/2013/04/prof-peter-higgs-atheist-scientist-admits-he-doesnt-believe-in-god-particle/ via @Richard Dawkins Foundation