God exists subjectively?

[theologian]

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aside the knowledge of matter and energy --and our knowledge that the universe had a beginning-- that make this an outdated argument, God is given the quality of being imperishable in order to solve a problem for which he can only be the answer if he has that quality.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 Considering the strides that science has made in understanding how things work, this one is badly outdated.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?

Thanks for your responses. Let me now comment on each of your comment on the Five Ways.

Now for the First Way, you've failed to point out how the exception contradicted the premise. Why? Because, there's really no contradiction. There is indeed an exception, for if there is not, then logic tells us that nothing must be existing which is absurd. However, there is no contradiction, for no premise in the First Way states that all are moved or changed. Your second objection against the First Way is that we have assigned the Unmoved Mover to God for our liking. And that the senses are not telling us that. Again, the sense part in the Five Ways can be found in the start of the five arguments, and not in the conclusions, just as our knowledge starts from the senses. So, in the first way, what was sense there is the change. You do agree that we can see change - - which is termed motion - - in your surrounding right? Now, after using the senses, we use our intellect to go deeper into reality. In the case of the First Way, we have found that there is an Unmoved Mover, or else nothing would exist, which is again absurd. Now, nothing I have said here that by the use of our senses, we can show that God is Unmoved Mover. The First Way tells us that the Unmoved Mover is call God. It is worth noting that the First Way and the other four arguments for God's existence in the Five Ways are demonstration from effects, and not demonstrating God directly. Why? Because God, by thinking about the meaning of the term, must necessarily unknowable as a whole, for if the term or the word God means that He is which nothing can be greater, then He must be Boundless, but all we could know as a whole are bounded. So, if your objection here about no premise to prove that God is the Unmoved Mover, then it is nothing but an objection like asking why dogs are called dogs? Hence, what is common in the Five Ways are that Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Supremely Intelligent Being, the conclusions, are called God, and that nothing that we can sense, can be predicated with the conclusions of the Five Ways.

Your objection to the Second Way is that what has been used to break the chain is the supposed nature of God. But, that can't be found in the Second Way if we are honest. Because the breaking of chain stems from the metaphysical and logical consequence that nothing would exist, which is again, absurd,and not because of God's presumed or assumed nature. On the contrary, with the help of Five Ways, we are little by little knowing what is God's essence.

The conclusion of the Third Way is that there must be a Necessary Being that is Uncaused. Again, what is sensed here is the generation and corruption of beings we see. Matter and energy is irrelevant, because quantity by itself don't tell us about the objective qualities of things.

In the Fourth Way, one must understand here that what is being talked about by St.Thomas Aquinas is the degree in truth and goodness in reality which are the transcendentals, that is, which exist in every way of being. That can't be said in smell or color or size, because not all of way of being included smell or color or size, because you cannot know the size of a color, or the smell of the size, or the smell of the color, but one can know the truth of the sizes, the truth of color, or the truth of size, hence truth can be present in every way of being. The same with willing the goodness of the smell, of the color, of the size, etc. Now, truth, goodness and being are just one and the same reality, but are just viewed from different angles. For an instance, the more actual the being, the more we know it and the more it is true and the more it is good, e.g. you know and will better an actual individual person, than a particular animal, plant and dust, because the individual person is greater in being than the other. But since, being is reality, and there is degree in being in reality, because there is degree of truth and goodness in reality, and since degree implies existence of a perfect one, it follows that there must be a Real Perfect Being. And that people call God. Now how about perfect evil? That cannot be the case, because evil is privation, that is lacking of what must be there. For example, an eye that cannot see us evil, for every eye should see. We don't prove nothing, right? Evil is just a degree of nothing. Further, evil means corruption, and if corruption, then it must be good initially, for nothing could be corrupted if it is not good initially. So, there can't be a perfect evil.

For the fifth way, science doesn't invalidate it. For, science is just focusing on the material and efficient causes of realities, while the fifth is about the final cause of things, just all acorn points to an oak tree.

Now to comment on your general comment, that we assume God's attribute and then we identify it with the conclusion of the Five Ways, let me do some answering. What is sure is that we didn't first define God as the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being. Instead, we have arrived at the conclusion that the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being exists, starting from the senses and then using sound Metaphysics and valid logical demonstration,and then we call those God. So, there's no assumption being made as you have objected. Your objection then seems to be what to call the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being, which is not a true objection then. Regardless of what we call God, He must necessarily exist, per Five Ways.

Finally, you are talking about particular quality of God. But to have A PARTICULAR quality is to be not God, for that will imply that something created God, and that is absurd, for in that case ,the one Who created God must be the real God.