ok i'll try an actual answer 
Two parts: one, the uselessness of this argument, even if it makes sense, pretty much what Min already said but with more detail. Two, which i am less sure about, the failure of this argument.
1. If you attribute these qualities to God, then yes he may exist. However, you first have to prove that there is a presence before explaining how this presence works.
This argument is presupposing God exists and then explains how he created itself. But it's a deus ex machina, for example you can say that in Harry Potter their wands can cast spells because they have magical elements in them. So in a world where wands have magical properties, casting spells seems plausible. However you first have prove these wands have magical properties. In the same way, you have to prove God exists and his different properties before explaining how they work. In short, this argument is useless before you prove God exists.
2. This argument is nonsense. See, to have the power of being, he must be. To be, he must have the power of being. This idea of God being eternal and not created is so abstract by nature that people stop looking into it after two or three layers of reasoning, but when you get down to it, you always have one aspect of their reasoning that is assuming an unexplainable ability.
Two parts: one, the uselessness of this argument, even if it makes sense, pretty much what Min already said but with more detail. Two, which i am less sure about, the failure of this argument.
1. If you attribute these qualities to God, then yes he may exist. However, you first have to prove that there is a presence before explaining how this presence works.
This argument is presupposing God exists and then explains how he created itself. But it's a deus ex machina, for example you can say that in Harry Potter their wands can cast spells because they have magical elements in them. So in a world where wands have magical properties, casting spells seems plausible. However you first have prove these wands have magical properties. In the same way, you have to prove God exists and his different properties before explaining how they work. In short, this argument is useless before you prove God exists.
2. This argument is nonsense. See, to have the power of being, he must be. To be, he must have the power of being. This idea of God being eternal and not created is so abstract by nature that people stop looking into it after two or three layers of reasoning, but when you get down to it, you always have one aspect of their reasoning that is assuming an unexplainable ability.
