God exists subjectively?

[theologian]

So why is that St. Thomas' arguments are not compelling, if you wouldn't mind?

Would it matter?  Will you stop schlepping them?  No, and no.  

Are they having false premise or invalid logical sequence or both?

I think that you understand those terms about as well as you understand the terms objective and subjective.  

If that is the case, then nothing can stop it to be compelling except our choice to believe subjectively instead of objectively. That will make atheist hypocrite then, for atheists accuse theists of subscribing to blind faith, and to believe subjectively is indeed to believe blindly.

Right, I;m glad you made your way to what was important, an appeal to hypocrisy riding in on the back of a false equivalence,

Tell me, is  faith a bad thing, or....what?  You're sending a conflicting message, here, amigo.  Do you hope to make me feel bad for having faith, or do you hope to get me some?

I -have- told you that the entire song and dance is irrelevant to me on more than one occasion, haven't I? You don't have to argue for your god with me. Frankly, I'd rather not watch you embarrass yourself.

I believe that you know that indifference is inconclusive.

Regarding my apparent contradiction regarding faith, well it is just apparent, because what I'm really doing is yes, I'm making you feel bad for having bad faith, and I'm hoping that you'll have good faith. Bad faith is the belief in what is not true, while the good faith is belief on what is true. After all, the only honest reason to believe is that what we believe in is really true.

So, can I finally convince you now to demonstrate here why is that the 5 Ways are not compelling for you? After all, for an argument be not compelling is one thing, and to ignore it is another thing.

---

Does the personality and identity of the one argues affect the validity of his argument?

Of course not.  The argument is stupid whether it is you or fucking Aquinas saying it.  Evidence is needed for your heavenly horseshit., not meaningless semantics.

You can make exactly the same arguments for One-Testicled Flying Pink Unicorns and it would be just as valid.

But, your One-Testicled Flying Pink Unicorns cannot be the First Cause, for we can further ask, what caused it to be a One-Testicled Flying Pink Unicorns instead of other form? It has a distinct manner of being from its act of being, and so it not a Simple Being like God, and every non - simple being must be caused.

The Five Ways starts with evidences and then uses logic to go deeper into reality. Hence, to deny its conclusion that God exist despite of Five Ways is to deny either the evidences or logic or both.

Thanks for trying to show how Five Ways could be wrong. That's a good move, albeit it's a contains a wrong objection.