Proof of God's Existence (or lack there of)

When I first read Thomas Aquinas’s Quinquae viae (Five ways to prove God's existence) I could not help but laugh. In 1265 Aquinas was considered a "model teacher" for those studying for the priesthood and he presented (as part of his Summa Theologica) five ways to prove God's existence. Here is one of them:

The argument of the first cause (ex causa):
1. Some things are caused.
2. Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
3. An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
5. This causer is what we call God.

I agree with Richard Dawkins on the analysis of this "proof". He basically agrees with items 1-4 and says that you can not necessarily conclude (logically or otherwise) that the “causer” is God. What’s to say that it’s not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Big Bang? The leap that Aquinas took from item 4 to 5 is complete bullshit and doesn’t prove anything.

None of the so called “proofs” adhere to the logic required by any type of formal proof in use today –such as induction, transposition, or contradiction. Aside from their not allowing anybody to conclude anything, the main reason I find these "proofs" interesting is the thought of what they would mean if they actually did what they said – prove God’s existence. The concept of “proving God’s existence” begs clarification. To me, it’s one of two things:

1) Literal proof. 100% undeniable confirmation of God’s existence. Perhaps I am interpreting the point a bit plainly but wouldn’t proof for God's existence mean that God actually existed and that everybody (including atheists and agnostics) would be able to indisputably see that God existed?

2) Non-literal proof. This is a simple exploitation of faith i.e., belief without reason. The concept of proof is provided only as a feeling within one’s self. With this proof, you are blessed with the feeling of ultimate contentment knowing that God exists. You will spend the rest of your life being the model servant of God and looking forward to eternity in heaven. You will never question your own faith due to your possessing 100% confirmation (at least in your own mind) of God’s existence.

Item 2 is just more religious mumbo jumbo and is basically what most religions try to shove down your throat. It illustrates the goal that most religious people are trying to reach in their life. Faith, per se, really is the ultimate trump card for any religion. It is the perfect method of control.

Aquinas obviously could not have meant literal proof (Item 1) because if we could scientifically prove God’s existence wouldn’t that make faith itself obsolete? With reason to believe i.e., 100 percent confirmation of God, all humans on planet Earth would of course worship the almighty Lord since the alternative would not be as appealing (spending eternity in Hell).

Most people probably fell for Aquinas’s bullshit in 1265 (and most believe it still today) – but that doesn’t make it true. To me it’s just another example of a religion trying to confuse and control the people. Perhaps a confused member of the flock is one that can be more easily guided.