God exists subjectively?

[Tonus]

Does the Unmoved Mover is moved or moves? (In context, does the Unchanging Changer changes or is changed?

How do you get to an unmoved mover or an uncaused cause?  By assigning a specific quality to an entity for one reason only: so that it does not contradict the premise.  But in doing so, we invalidate the premise.  I realize we're going in circles, but you have not resolved the issue of where this quality comes from or why we would know to assign it to an entity whose existence we cannot validate unless we apply that quality to it.  We have to invent god before we can prove god, with a logical exercise whose premise is broken by the existence of god.  Forgive me if I'm being thick, but I cannot see a way around this.

Now, you may want to attribute the conclusions from the Five Ways, namely, the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Supremely Intelligent Being to other reality other than God.

No, I don't want that because it would be the same approach and would run into the same problems. If we approach the five ways without any preconceptions, we don't come up with an answer at all.

After that, using our intellect, we can arrive with the same conclusions in the Five Ways: that the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being exist.

We can, sure. But we do not have to. We can arrive at other conclusions. For example, we can come to the conclusion that the perfect being is the ultimate form of evil. Or hate. Or that there is no perfect being at all.

Do you see the Fifth Way as having the premise that the purpose which can be seen in nature are all supernatural?

No, I am saying that what we have discovered and learned in the intervening centuries indicates that supernatural causes don't exist at all.  Thus, for any questions that remain unanswered today, the likelihood that the cause is natural is 100% until such time as we verify the supernatural cause for even one single thing.

Metaphysics is high above empirical science, for the conclusions in the former are accepted without questions by the latter. Hence, the new atheism today is so wrong big time, because they conclude that there is no God, because empirical science can't show God, which has a hidden premise, which is notoriously overlooked as being false, and that hidden premise is that only which has scientific evidence can be true, yet that is self defeating, as that statement itself doesn't have a scientific evidence, for it is a philosophical claim, and that is an example of an incorrect metaphysics. Hence, validation, which is the method used by empirical science, is not the absolute measurement of all reality. The correct metaphysics must study being, for what is common to all are being.

Two answers to this:

1- It is correct that the claim "there is no god" cannot be proven and is not scientific.  However, it is reasonable to hold such a belief in the face of a lack of sufficient evidence for god, especially when the evidence on display is generally very poor and cannot be tested or validated even by the people who claim it.  The approach I see used most often is similar to Aquinas five ways, which is to try to posit that god must exist.  Not that he does, but that he has to.  The notion that the best we can do is try to find god via a process of elimination strikes me as a reason to doubt that any of the gods that people profess belief in exists.

2- All well and good, but is there a consensus on how to properly study "being" so that we can compare and (in)validate statements and beliefs?  Is there any way to peer-review metaphysical claims to separate truth from falsehood?  Without a foundation for establishing ways to test and verify claims we end up with a world where there are many different religions and denominations within them, where most of them claim that the others are wholly or partly false and none can establish their case with sufficient certainty that they are able to sway all of the others.