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.

[theologian]

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.

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.

What do you mean by invalidating 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.

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?

If that is the case, where in the Five Ways can we find the premises that affirms God's existence before concluding that He exist?

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.

I argue that there's no preconception in the Five Ways regarding God. For, all of the premises about Five Ways are about the things we see and we understand. If that is not the case, please quote the part of the Five Ways which has a pre-conception of God.

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.

If one will say that from Five Ways, one can arrive at the conclusion that there will be a Perfect Being that is the ultimate form of evil as you say, then one doesn't get Aquinas, and is funnily affirming Perfect good that is ultimately evil, which is an oxymoron, because Perfect Being is Perfect Goodness, because being and the good are just one and same and are just looked in different perspective. Because, Aquinas, in his Fourth Way, is talking about the degree of truth and goodness in the things we see and understand. Further, evil is not being but a non-being. Because, evil is a privation. Privation is the habit of not having what must be there. For an instance, a man -- whose nature is to know the truth and love the good -- choose to be ignorant of what is true and good in his action is choosing and will surely do evil, just as a blind eye is not a good eye, for the nature of eye is to see.

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.

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.

Now, if one's scope of study is only about natural occurrence, then one will not bother to look for supernatural cause. 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. But, you are talking about here of natural science and not Metaphysics. And to argue regarding the supernatural with the premises from the knowledge which has limited in scope like natural science is to argue invalidly, just as to argue invalidity that elephants does not exist absolutely, just because I don't see an elephant in this room.

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.

Aquinas Five Ways is stronger than science, since to deny the conclusions of the former is to deny both reality and logic (for Aquinas' Five Ways starts from the things we see and understand which is reality) while the latter argues from a limited scope and naturally corrects itself from time to time.

Regarding the existence of God people believed, what must be checked there is not the existence God, but the source of their belief, if we consider Five Ways already and the other things we can deduce from it, and indeed that we must consider, because not considering relevant truth is to argue from an incomplete premise, and that is how to argue invalidly.

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.

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.

Religion is different matter here, because to study religion is to consider the source of faith, and that is to go beyond reason. However, discussion regarding religion will only be fruitful if by reason alone, we already agree that God exists, especially by the way of sound theistic arguments for God's existence which is the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. Because, religion already accepts that God exist.

[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.

[theologian]

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.

Let's see.

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.

Finally, you have shown where other atheists got St. Thomas Aquinas wrong. You hold that in Five Ways of St. Thomas, there is a premise that says "everything is caused" or "everything is moved". However, if we're honest and careful, we will admit that there's no such premises in the Five Ways. If there is, kindly quote it here.

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 think our going in circles here will be done soon, by determining who is right in this regard: Whether St. Thomas in his Five Ways affirm that "everything has a cause" or "everything is moved" in its premises.

If you can quote part of Five Ways that shows that, then you are correct with your accusation that Five Ways invalidates its premise with its conclusion.

If you cannot, then time and again, theists have shown atheists that their just committing straw man fallacy and will not help to be theists soon due to the strength and certainty of the Five Ways and by God's grace.

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.

The Five Ways doesn't argue for a beginning. That's another point where atheist misunderstood Aquinas. The things we see and understand are the things around us. And the things around us is the starting point of the Five Ways.

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.'

What's unproven here? Again, you misunderstand Aquinas. Because he was not deriving the perfect from the comparative terms only, but from degrees of being, and beings are not mere terms.

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?

Evil actions and evil intentions shouldn't be there, granted that we are rational beings, whom are able to know the truth and love the good by our very nature, and so what must be the intention and action should be good. Therefore, evil is still absence of good.

Some weakness and sadness are not good too, and so it is also lack of good. For after all, being and goodness are the same. 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.

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.

I'm excited to see whether you can quote from Five Ways anything that proves your claim that it affirms in its premises that "everything is caused" and so prove that you are correct, because I know there isn't a premise there that affirms that "everything has a cause".

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.

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

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.

What's unproven here? It's easy to see that every natural thing has its own nature. However, nature are definite and it must be formed by something or someone, for from nothing, only nothing comes. Either 1) the source of the definition of nature has a nature and therefore natural; 2) or not. If 1, then it's cause may have a natural cause too, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. But, that can't be, for we cannot arrive at a sufficient reason. But, there must be a sufficient reason. Therefore, there must be no. 2, a being that is beyond nature and therefore super-natural, Being Himself, and that people call God.

Of course, that can't be seen in natural science, because the scope of science is what is natural. However, if we argue from the scope regarding the existence of something outside of the scope, then we are arguing invalidly. So, if we argue from natural science regarding supernatural, we are doing our logic wrong. Just as the existence of the maker of rule of chess can't be known by the content of the rules of chess only, so science which is only knowing the laws of nature and its consequences cannot proceed about knowing whether there is a lawmaker or not.

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.

The problem with that is that it is not true that belief is the only reason for holding Five Ways as true, for very great philosopher like Dr. Edward Feser who was an atheist before and now who is a Catholic sees the truth of the Five Ways and is doing a very good job in pointing out the distortion of the misunderstanding of the atheists regarding the Five Ways.

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.

Do you know the principle of non-contradiction? It is already assumed in physical and experimentation. You don't experiment to know that principle. On the contrary, we experiment because we know that principle of contradiction is true, because of the hypothesis is true, it must not contradict what see observe. But, in metaphysics, it is shown systematically by starting with "being" (meaning that which is), and then forming the judgment that being is not non-being. And therefore, a being cannot be and not be at the same time, same place and same sense, and that is the principle of non-contradiction. So, metaphysics works with what is common with all reality: And that is "act of being". Unlike science which study only those which have quantities, it is therefore limited in its scope (because there are other reality like quality, directed-ness, causality), metaphysics which studies all that have act of being (which what makes thing real) and so what is outside of metaphysics are those which don't have act of being, which is literally nothing, this making metaphysics the correct tool to deal with supernatural and with the existence of God.

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.

Well, metaphysics is laborious. If everyone does indeed exert effort in knowing sound metaphysics, then I agree with you that there will be no dozens of religions and thousands of denomination.

[Minimalist]

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?

I understand that you cannot grasp that the same applies to your absurd 'god.'

Nonetheless, it does.  Your bullshit is not special.

[theologian]

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?

I understand that you cannot grasp that the same applies to your absurd 'god.'

Nonetheless, it does.  Your bullshit is not special.

It doesn't apply to my God, because God by demonstration is not caused, but your unicorn etc by demonstration must be caused, because it has a particular form that will limit its being suppose it exist.

[Minimalist]

You do so want to be special, don't you.  You even invented a special friend.

It is hard to take you seriously, pal.  Bullshit is bullshit... and you can call it 'god' all you want but it remains an absurd figment of someone's imagination.

[theologian]

You do so want to be special, don't you.  You even invented a special friend.

It is hard to take you seriously, pal.  Bullshit is bullshit... and you can call it 'god' all you want but it remains an absurd figment of someone's imagination.

Well, it's obvious who is inventing here. Now, my conviction that there is God corresponds with reality and logic by knowing the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. So, I feel pity for atheist whom don't believe in God and therefore don't correspond with logic and reality. It's like being crazy, whatcha think?

[Tonus]

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.

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.

What's unproven here?

All of it.  Every part of the statement I quoted is unproven.  It's hardly even coherent, to be honest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

[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.