I am going to answer you in two posts. In this one I´ll just answer your objections.
Great for you! I think it is fair to assume, that you hold the sola scriptura view? Christianity in the world is growing fast, but it is declining in the west, especially western europe, so I of course am interested in making good arguments or even proving Gods existence through philosophy of nature.
The strongest arguments are being drawn not from scientific data, but from presuppostitions that science itself has to make in order to work! The bible is the way to God in the way he revealed himself to us through Jesus. We can make strong arguments for Gods existence just with looking at the historical data of the life of Jesus and his resurrection. But these arguments for Jesus being the Messiah only get stronger, if we already have established Gods existence through the philosophy of nature. How anyone can therefor think that the philosophers God is a dangerous myth, is beyond me. In which way would the New Testament be threatened in any way, if we would adapt the aristotelian-thomistic philosophy? It is almost redundant to say, that I know of no Thomist who isn´t also a Christian. And I know of no Thomist who thinks, that the philosophy has completely grasped every attribute that God has. Where natural theology ends and revelation theology begins is clearly distinguished by every philosopher and theologian in the area.
People get persuaded by the christian truth through different ways. For me it was the history of Jesus life and resurrection. If one wants to come to God first, you maybe get there through witnessing a miracle (50-90% of new members in the chinese church claim to get to the faith because they witnessed one), having experiences or getting there through philosophy (Edward Feser). I probably forgot ten other ways here, but that doesn´t matter. Claiming a priori that the “philosophers God” (It´s the same every Christian believes in, of course) doesn´t exist, respectively we have no way to get to God through philosophy and thus human reasoning, does not only run against an important doctrine in the catholic church (An incredible compiment to the human reason and rationality by the way), it also smells like a no-true-scotsman-fallacy, the way you argue.
This was just a reaction at the moment, when realizing, that the editor of the Wikipedia page on the five ways of Aquinas to prove Gods existence (It is a proof, by the way, because if the premise is accepted, the conclusion follows from it and doesn´t allow for another conclusion or possibility. It is called “evidence” in philosophy, if there in principle is another option, no matter how improbable that one might be. Aquinas ways are prooves, because there is no other possibility), had the same amount of philosophical knowledge like Dawkins, when equating the first three ways with the kalam cosmological argument, although Aquinas explicitly rejected it, since he thought that arguing for God from a beginning of the world, was just a terrible argument.
I can agree with that one, it doesn´t attack the position of divine simplicity. Once again, “Simplicity” doesn´t refer to simple the way normally used, but that should be clear to anybody.
And I can agree with that one, too, which is why, I don´t understand your hostility towards philosophical proving Gods existence. Let me ask you, Roger:
If I see your back, can I claim to have seen the whole person? Of course not! But I can certainly say that you were there, because I saw you, albeit only a part of you. This is no different to the arguments from natural theology.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom and has many faces and comes from different perspectives. Good metaphysics argue from a standpoint, that isn´t dependent of current or future scientific knowledge, but take the same presuppositions as science does
The second post will take a bit longer. I want to show, why your position of a rational universe from a rational mind, while at the same time denying the possibility of philosophy to show that, is inconsistent.