God exists subjectively?

[Tonus]

We arrive at an Unmoved Mover or an Uncaused Cause not by assigning a specific quality, but by metaphysical demonstration and logical deduction that shows that there couldn't be anything, if all are moved and are caused.

I don't see how you can demonstrate anything conclusively using metaphysics.  Logical deduction tells us that the example cannot be resolved and is logically invalid.

What do you mean by invalidating the premise?

If the premise is "everything must have quality A" and you introduce a variable that does not have quality A, you have invalidated the premise.  If everything has a cause, the moment you introduce something that is uncaused the premise is wrong.  As I said before, it is so clear that I cannot make the explanation any simpler.

Okay, to clarify, your problem with Five Ways is that God's existence has already been affirmed in the premise, and therefore it is fallacious by being a circular, is that correct?

My objection is that in order to resolve any of the five ways we must grant god a quality that invalidates the premise.  We're going in circles because I keep explaining this and you either ignore it or deny it without providing a sensible explanation.

I argue that there's no preconception in the Five Ways regarding God.

If there were no preconceptions, we would simply find that the example is invalid and scrap it.  I don't agree that it is about things we see and understand, because we understand that infinite regress does not lead us to a beginning, and granting a convenient quality to a made-up variable is not logical.

because Perfect Being is Perfect Goodness, because being and the good are just one and same and are just looked in different perspective.

Unproven assertion.  Nor is it logical-- if we can extrapolate from comparative terms to reach an ultimate 'best' then we can also reach an ultimate 'worst.'

Because, evil is a privation.

Evil is not simply the absence of good.  Actions and motivations can be determined to be evil and we can judge things as being worse than bad.  Nor are good and evil the only factors that we can extend towards perfection.  Is god both the ultimate strength and the ultimate weakness?  The ultimate joy and the ultimate sadness?

I don't understand how one can conclude that there's no God after the premises of the Five Ways. For, in concluding there is no God, then one is affirming that the things we see and understand are not true and real, and that is absurd.

Unproven assertion.  Also, I do not have to conclude that there is no god in order to point out that the premises of the five ways are invalid.

Now, if one's scope of study is only about natural occurrence, then one will not bother to look for supernatural cause.

If one has to "bother to look for supernatural" causes, then the supernatural is not evident.  The scientific method begins with observations, and those lead to hypotheses and experimentation and possibly theories.  If our scope of study does not encompass the supernatural, then the supernatural has not been observed.

But, if one's study has the scope of all reality like and metaphysics, one can see that if there is no supernatural, then no natural things will exist too.

Unproven assertion.  If you cannot justify your unproven assertions, I see no reason to accept them.  If your belief system requires so many such claims to remain viable, I would question its viability.

Aquinas Five Ways is stronger than science

No, they're not.  They can't even get out of their own way.  They are a nonstarter.

Regarding the existence of God people believed, what must be checked there is not the existence God, but the source of their belief

If there was a source of belief that was stronger than the five ways, I would expect that theists would be presenting that to us instead.  But if Aquinas was a presuppositionalist, then it's not difficult to see why he thought the five ways were a valid method of determining that god was necessary.  Had he not been hindered by his beliefs, he might have recognized the problem with them and scrapped the whole exercise.

There is a way to study "being" systematically and correctly, and that is by way of sound metaphysics. Metaphysics actually is the foundation of and also is assumed in science which method is verification in experiment. If that is the case, Metaphysics is beyond experiment, and it's conclusion is clearly more certain. For if that is otherwise, then we may want to deny verification in experiment too, which is again founded and assumes metaphysics.

None of that explains how metaphysics works-- it's a barely-coherent claim that it does.  You can't just string a bunch of claims together and expect them to be accepted as anything but one unproven assertion after another.

Nor am I talking about religion; that's a whole other stack of problems that makes determining the possible existence of god seem like a cakewalk.  If you cannot define metaphysics and explain the ways in which it can be used to consistently determine what is true or not, then it is useless.  I strongly suspect that there is none, otherwise humanity would be moving towards one single understanding of god and not the dozens of religions and thousands of denominations within them.