Obviously you don't think God's existence can be proven. If you did, you would be at a minimum a classical theist and more likely a Christian. But I would caution you to be careful to distinguish between the claims, "God's existence cannot be proven" and "God's existence has not been proven." We'd have to have a serious discussion about Thomas' five ways (for example) to really flesh that out, which is something I don't think we've ever done. But all of that is rather far removed from the original point I was making.
Again, I claimed that the existence of God can be proven, not merely felt, that it is an article of reason, not of faith. You can claim at this point that God's existence
has not been proven, and while I would disagree with that, I would (in this thread) ignore it as it doesn't go to the point I was making. Or you can make the stronger claim that God's existence
cannot be proven, and in that case, you have to put forward an argument to support you claim. Just disagreeing with Thomas (or whomever) doesn't suffice.
As an aside and to your appeal to authority, I would just add that most critics of Aquinas I have read actually fail to understand his argument, and that demonstrably so. It would be too easy to point out that Dawkins is an idiot. But the same can be
demonstrated when considering Lawhead, Valasquez, W. T. Jones, Krueger, Colin Brown, and even the notables Russell and Hick. So feel free to appeal to authority. I know a thing or two about those authority and how philosophy is studied in academic settings. And the best part, to me, that shows the utter bankruptcy of the claim in this particular case is that Thomas was just refining Aristotle. Everyone knows Aristotle, right? That's where you would be wrong. These professionals have a laughable understanding of the man. I've spent countless hours talking to professional philosophers (including Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig) and correcting them on their Aristotle and Aquinas. It's really embarrassing. But what do you expect? These schools think they are impressive because they read each other. Their misunderstandings are literally laughable--as in, those who actually study Aristotle and Aquinas in Greek and Latin (hello!) literally laugh at those so-called professionals. So, please, do appeal to them!
So I just go back to my prayers. Perhaps in your studies you will take the time to take Aristotle and Aquinas seriously. If you do, you'll be surprised to find that those men knew far more than their critics do, and that just because you can spout the four causes and give a basic exposition of hylomorphism, it doesn't qualify you to say you understand Aristotle's Prime Mover argument, much less to be able to assess it. But that's all your journey. When you want to get around to the
real stuff, you will. Shy of that, maybe God will just miraculously reveal Himself to you . . . who knows?