God exists subjectively?

[Tonus]

Now, you say that there's a logical dead end and the known ways to progress successfully is to introduce an exception. However, that exception invalidates the premise, as you say. I am sure I have shown the otherwise. So, kindly  show how and why the exception invalidates the premise in Five Ways. That may be a way to show that you are talking really a non contradicting part of the Five Ways.

1- The unmoved mover: The presumption is that there must be something at the start of a causal chain that is an exception to the state that creates that chain. This quality is then assigned to God, even though none of our senses can tell us that God is an unmoved mover.

2- The uncaused cause: Same as above. God's eternal nature is not indicated by anything we can sense, yet it is granted to him in order to break a causal chain.

3- The argument from contingency: Putting aside the knowledge of matter and energy --and our knowledge that the universe had a beginning-- that make this an outdated argument, God is given the quality of being imperishable in order to solve a problem for which he can only be the answer if he has that quality. Once again, none of our senses can discern this about God.

4- The argument from degree assumes that just because we make comparisons of quality, that these necessarily lead us up or down a chain of quality that must end in an absolute extreme. This one is so silly that I wonder why he did not discard it. Why doesn't this one lead us to a God that is the greatest evil?

5- The teleological argument assumes that an intelligent designer is required for the universe to work as it does. Considering the strides that science has made in understanding how things work, this one is badly outdated. That the argument from design is still compelling tells us more about how our brains work than how there is a need for a creator to set the universe in motion.

Unless we assign a specific quality to God that we cannot know before we even prove that he is real, the five ways don't lead us to an answer. The five ways are like the game show Jeopardy, where the answer is provided first and then a suitable question is formulated so as to arrive at it. The only one that we can say we 'see' with our senses is the argument from design, but as we continue to learn about the universe and how it works, we find that our senses are fooling us. That might seem easy to dismiss when talking about the origins of the universe, but there was a time when it would have been said about lightning and earthquakes and the tides. How do our senses reliably indicate any of the above are true without first applying a particular quality to God that we cannot know he possesses?