Because you are unfamiliar with the proofs for the existence of God does not mean that the proofs are fallacious or non-existent. It simply means that you're ignorant.
You have got to be kidding me. The "proofs" of Aquinas are badly flawed and would only pass muster with someone who hasn't been schooled in the basics of reason and logic. Using those particular arguments as "proof" is hardly the badge of someone who has critically studied the matter. I'm not trying to be adversarial here, but Aquinas should have stuck with the stuff he was better at. It is kind of like Isaac Newton, who spent his whole life trying to be a great theologian (being deeply religious). His works on theology are absolute crap; his side hobby of mathematics and physics (much of which he tried to frame in a theological sense) was a much better use of his time even if he didn't recognize it as such.