God exists subjectively?

[theologian]

You hold that in Five Ways of St. Thomas, there is a premise that says "everything is caused" or "everything is moved".

To clarify, "everything that moves is moved by something else" and "everything that begins has a cause" is creating an absolute condition.  Then an exception is introduced with no reason other than to overcome the condition.  That I phrased it as I did on the third or fourth go-round does not invalidate the point I made the first two or three times, and you have still not answered it without resorting to unproven assertions about God or his nature.

Next questions:

1. Is the proposition that "everything that moves is moved by something else" is the same with "everything is moved"?
2. Is the proposition that "everything that begins has a cause" is the same with "everything is caused"?
3. Further, does Five Ways affirm "everything has a beginning"

If your answer is yes, then prove it (for nos. 1 and 2) or quote it from Five Ways (for no. 3). If no, then there is really no invalidation between the premises and conclusions in Five Ways, correct?

The Five Ways doesn't argue for a beginning.

Yes, it does.  It looks to find a starting point that our "understanding" leads back to, which you then assert is God.

That doesn't shown to be showing beginning, does it?

Evil actions and evil intentions shouldn't be there

But they are, so they exist and can be quantified.  Some actions are more evil than others, as are some intentions.  So we can grade evil on a scale the same way we can with good.

But those exist with good things. Without being, there can't be no corrupted being which is evil. Therefore, evil is still privation and is like a parasite.

The proof of that is simple: It is no GOOD to have one million dollar in your mind only. Hence, every truly good things must be real. Thus, being is being as looked on itself, being is truth as looked on the intellect, and being is goodness as looked on the will.

Unproven assertion that is barely a step up from word salad.  You have no way to prove anything that you just said, you simply state it as if it must be true.  If you need this much presupposition in order to support Aquinas, no wonder his arguments are a lost cause.

Well, I don't understand your mantra "Unproven assertion", even though there are demonstration via argumentation. Or what you mean is that you must see a concrete abstraction so that you will not repeat your mantra? But concrete abstraction is an oxymoron.

Does it follows then that what is not observed is not real?

It follows that what is not observed is not evident, and that it cannot be confirmed or verified or studied.  If you want to go down the path of "anything can be real as long as we can imagine it" then there is a very long line-up of Gods awaiting your recognition.

The Five Ways are not matter of imagination alone. For, what is used there are logical deduction that if the reasoning form is valid and all the premises are true, then the conclusion should be true too. So, as long as you don't have a good reason to show that Five Ways is wrong, it follows that if you still deny God afterwards, then you are denying both reality and logic which are used in Five Ways in demonstrating the existence of God. Of course, your objection as being false will be clear to you as we progress with this exchange, but try to ask your fellow atheist whether they agree with you that there is an invalidating premise in Five Ways, I bet there are who will disagree with you.

What's unproven here?

All of it.  And your explanation was more of the same.  You continue to support your ideas with assertions that are unproven.  The lack of a natural explanation for something does not require that we assume the supernatural.  Human history is one of people making supernatural claims to explain things that have ended up having a natural explanation.  Always.  Never the other way around.  Yet you aren't able to "see and understand" what that fact is telling you.

So what is the fact are telling us? Let me see your demonstration. I'm the one who is demonstrating here lately.

The problem with that is that it is not true that belief is the only reason for holding Five Ways as true,

It has to be, since they do not stand on their own logically.

Well we'll see in your following answer to my questions above.

Do you know the principle of non-contradiction?

The paragraph that followed this is just more of the same nonsense.  Let's just cut to the chase: there are no standards or methods by which metaphysical claims can be tested, validated, or falsified.  There is no method of peer-review that all 'metaphysicists' can agree on.  They cannot even agree on which God is the real one, which on its own should indicate that its a useless 'science.'

Knowing Who is the real God is not yet the question here. So, it is irrelevant up to this moment. Again, try to see how self-defeating is your demand:

1. Only which is verifiable is real.
2. But, the proposition "Only which is verifiable is real" cannot be verified, as that is a philosophical claim.
3. Therefore, no. 1 is self defeating.

I think that is the right way to invalidate premise.

Well, metaphysics is laborious.

So is biology.  And physics.  And genetics.  And lots of other fields of science where millions of people manage to follow a system of discovery and experimentation that yields repeatable results that work, regardless of beliefs.  And where all of the presuppositions in the world will not make a whit of difference in determining what is true and what is not.  The problem with metaphysics is not that it's laborious.  The problem is that it's an imaginary field of study.

All of those presuppose metaphysical concepts like being, principle of non-contradiction, principle of sufficient reason, principle of cause and effects etc. Hence, metaphysics is more laborious, that's why people can easily agree with physics and genetics, and however, can easily be wrong with God and Metaphysics, because the scope of physics and other physical science are limited to which are physical and quantifiable.