I am God, and you do not exist--Take II

So I posed this argument before, and was destroyed horribly in the voting (last I checked, my contender had over 4 times the number of votes I had). However, I am pretty stubborn, and convinced that, if correctly posed, this is an argument which actually is flawless. So, here's my second shot. My first point: I am God. By "God," I do not mean I am the God that is worshipped in Judeo-Christianity, nor am I any other "God" in that sense. I will define my Godhood as me, or, at least, my subconsciousness, being the omnipotent and, to a degree, omniscient creator of the universe. So, this is the preface: Everything we sense--see, hear, feel, taste, smell--is a neurological reaction to stimuli. That is, our sensing of something is something that goes on in our mind. So, why is it not possible that there are in fact no stimuli, but that everything we sense is the product of our subconscious minds? That is, all we sense exists only in our minds, which create the illusion of the reality we perceive. The stimuli which we encounter are all facades created in our minds. With all our senses thus being in question, so is the existance of others. Any consciousness can prove to itself that it exists, simply because it is aware of itself--"I think, therefore I am," as said by Descartes*. Thus, I can no for myself that I do exist. However, it cannot be proven to me that anybody else exists. While they may lay claim to being aware of their own respective consciousness, to me it is still possible that this is simply my mind creating the image of somebody telling me this. Now, if I am the only one who exists, that would mean that all of creation is the fabrication of my own mind. Everything I sense is something my mind has made, and that means my mind must have created everything. This establishes my first claim to Godhood--creator of the universe. If my mind has created everything, then it also has powert to alter everything as it sees fit--I am thus, at least in my subconscious, omnipotent. Now, anything that I can learn I actually already know--if the information can be presented to me, and the presentor is actually a creation of my own mind, then I must actually already know what I can learn. For example, I might study American history in a book. However, because that information is available, that means my mind has already created, and thus already known it. Anything that is in my capacity to know, I in fact do. Thus, to a significant degree, I am omniscient. Now, to end, I would like to clarify a few things to solidy the argument. 1) This argument assumes that I do exist. Claiming that I cannot prove to anyone else that I exist does nothing but solidy my own claim that one cannot prove one's existance to another. 2) The argument is not simply that you do not exist, but that it is impossible for me to personally be proven otherwise. You may say that you can prove to yourself that you exist, but this does not prove it to me, so I can still believe you do not exist. If there are still some points that you are not clear on, but think you might want to debate this, just leave a comment and I'll address it. *Those who followed the previous iteration of this debate may note that in the comments I mentioned I was not familiar with Descartes; it was not until after I stated that that I ascertained it was he who said that.