God exists subjectively?

[theologian]

Care to demonstrate it here?

http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-wa...dead-ends/

Thanks for sharing this. I have finished reading it. Let me demonstrate here how that one too didn't discredit the 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Per your website, the objection against the First Way is that Theory of Relativity shows that motion must be from the observer only. However, aside from missing the point (for motion in the First Way means change in the general sense and not only change in location), it missed what Theory of Relativity is. For, theory of relativity doesn't deny the existence of motion of the object, instead it just shows that the perception of motion is affected by the motion of the one who perceives, hence the relativity. So, the first objection didn't discredited the 1st way of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The objection to the Second Way shows that matter are just changed and not created, and so the premise of Second Way that shows that matter must be caused is wrong. However, it is not true that matter are just changed and not created, because matter has a particular form and property. Now, every thing that that has a form and property must be defined by something or Someone, for nothing forms itself. So, the objection is false and therefore wrong. It was just a product of wrong philosophy called Scientism.

The objection to the Third Way is that the universe is eternal, for Big Bang may have been just an eternal expansion and compression of the universe, and therefore it is not contingent, and so the premise in the Third Way of St. Thomas Aquinas that imply the the universe must be contingent is not true. But, the Third Way of St. Thomas Aquinas doesn't really imply that the universe is not eternal and therefore not contingent. It may be that the universe is a necessary being. However, in the Third Way of St. Thomas Aquinas, he distinguishes a necessary being that is caused, and a necessary being that is not caused. But, again, the universe cannot be a necessary being that doesn't have a cause, for the universe has a particular form and configuration. So, the objection to the Third Way misses many points.

The objection to the Fourth Way misses the point too, for it talks about essences while the Fourth Way talks about the degree of truth and goodness, which is reality or being in other words, for truth and goodness is still being which are just looked on other aspect, such as, being, which is looked in terms of knowing, is truth, while being, in terms of willing, is good.

Finally, the objection to the Fifth Way appeals to the proposition that mind comes from mindless, and so even if the objects around us are like made by a Mind, that mind must be from a mindless too which cannot be God and also shows that the premise that everything that acts to a certain end must be caused by a mind is false. Now, when examined how did the author of the objection arrived at his proposition that mind comes from mindless, he has appealed to the case of feral children whom didn't develop intellect and therefore, those who have developed intellect got their intellect in society and so the proposition goes that mind comes form the mindless. But, society are product of human nature, and human nature has mind. So, his proposition that mind came from mindless cannot be true. Therefore, his objection too here is false.

So, either I'm not being biased per demonstration above or I'm still biased by demonstrating my counter argument to the website's objection incorrectly. If latter, then please show it here.