Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 2, Article 3

Question 2. The existence of God

Does God exist?

Article 3. Whether God exists?

Is there a God?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

It doesn't seem logical that God should exist.  Because if God is all good and God is omnipresent, that is to say, everywhere, then evil should not exist.  But we know that evil does exist.  Therefore, there can be no such thing as an omnipresent God. 

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

Anyway, there is no need to imagine the existence of God because the existence of the world and all of the things in it can be accounted for in other ways. 

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

St. Thomas counters,  Scripture says that God is He who is.  In other words, God is all which exists. 

*Of course, this is proof only for those who presuppose the existence of God and also admit the inspiration of Scripture.

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

There are five ways to prove the existence of God. 

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.

The first of the five and the easiest to visualize, is the argument from motion. 

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

When we look at nature, we can see that some things are moving.  The moon, for instance.

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,

And we know that nothing moves unless something moves it.  When we move, for example, it is because we move our bodies.   

for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.

I think, by the term "actuality", he means, "action".  Therefore, motion is nothing but changing from the state of "potential action" to "action". 

But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

So, wood doesn't burn unless it is set on fire by something which is already hot enough to make it burn.

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

So, since we know that nothing moves unless something else moves it, we can trace back the action to the first mover.  And we know that He who moved first, is God.

This is the first way to prove that God exists.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

To me, this second proof is very similar to the first, except it is the case of the Maker.  The one who caused all things to come into existence is God.  But the proof goes to tracing back all things which were created to the first thing.  The First Thing could not have been created.  He is the Maker of first creatures and gave them the ability to reproduce and continue reproducing themselves until now. 

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus.

The third way to prove the existence of God is from reasoning that which is nonessential and that which is essential. 

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.

In life, we see that things are here today and gone tomorrow.  They are born, age and die.  They are made, wax old and wear out.   These things are nonessential to the existence of the world.  Because the world was here before they existed and will remain after they pass.

But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence.

But, if everything were nonessential, then it would be possible that at one time, nothing existed at all.  

Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.

But, if this were true, nothing today could exist.  Because nothing from nothing is nothing.  In order for something to come into existence, something else must bring it into existence.

Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd.

Therefore, since nothing from nothing is nothing, it is ridiculous to believe that there ever was a time when something didn't exist. 

Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.

Therefore, there must be something which exists which is essential for the existence of everything else. 

But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

Therefore, God must exist.   

*The rest of that paragraph is a brief summary of the first cause proof above (i.e. the second proof).

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things.

The fourth proof is from degree of things to be found.   

Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like.

All things differ from one another to some degree.  Some are better, some are worse.   

But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii.

But everything is better or worse in comparison to that which is best.  There is always a standard to which everything is compared.

Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. 

*Now, we don't normally think of God as hot.  Because we have been conditioned to think of hell as hot.  But, remember that Scripture says, "Hebrews 12:29; For our God is a consuming fire."

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Therefore, there has to be something that can pass on all good things.  That being is He whom we call, God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world.

The fifth proof is from Intelligent design.

We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end.

We can look at all the things in our world and see that there is a grand design.

Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

But if there is no intelligence, then there can be no design.  And the more grand the design, the more grand the Designer.  Therefore, we know that there is One who designed all things.  We call Him, God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Now, the first objection said that evil exists, therefore God can not exist.  However, St. Augustine says that God permits evil in order to bring about a greater good.

*I say, "look at the Crucifixion".  God permitted the most heinous evil, the Crucifixion, which is, essentially, men murdering God.  And He permitted that in order to bring about the redemption of all mankind and the salvation of those who repent of their sins.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

The second objection said that can be many ways that creatures could have come into being.  Therefore, the idea of a grand creator is not necessary.

St. Thomas says that this is disproved in the five proofs above.  Just because men can concoct reasons for the existence of the universe, it doesn't mean they are right.  It just means they deny the truth.

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 2, Article 2

Question 2. The existence of God

Does God exist?  

Article 2. Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Can we prove to people that God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

The first objection says that if you prove God's existence, then you do away with faith.  Because if you can see something, you know it is true and you no longer hope that it is true.

Objection 2. Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we can not know in what God'sessence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

We can't prove a negative.  God's essence is far beyond a human capacity to understand.  Therefore, God's existence can't be proved.

Objection 3. Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

It is not true that God can be known by studying nature.  Because is infinite and nature is finite.  Therefore, there is no relation between God and nature.  And God's existence can't be proved by nature.

On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.

But, St. Paul says, in the book of Romans, that God's existence can be proved by His creation.  Therefore, since we know that we exist and we are wonderfully made, then we know that our Creator exists.

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

St. Thomas argues that there are two ways that God's existence can be demonstrated.  One way is to argue from the point of view of the Creator.  The other is to deduce His existence from what He has created.  Since we know that some things are created which are too wonderful to exist unless they were created, then we can demonstrate the existence of the Creator.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

I can only speak for myself here.  The way I understand St. Thomas is to say that FAITH IS BELIEVING.  And believing is knowing.  When you believe something, you know it is true.  That is why, to an atheist, seeing is believing.  Because once he sees it, he knows it.  But to a Catholic, faith is believing.  Because, once we come to accept the truth of God's existence, we begin to know Him and to love Him.

Folks, the most pitiful thing I have ever seen is a Catholic or a Christian, having just been asked the question, "Do you believe that God exists?"  Answering, "I don't know.  I have faith that He exists."

That is not faith!  THAT IS IDIOCY!  Faith is trust.  Faith is love.  Faith is knowing that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence.

The existence of a creature, demands the existence of a Creator.

This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence,

???  I have no idea what he means by middle term.

for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence.

We don't need to know God's nature in order to prove that He is real.

Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".

 I still don't know what he means by "middle term".

However, from the context, I assume he is simply repeating that God can be proved by His effects.

Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

Although nature is finite and God is infinite, yet we can prove God's existence from what He has created.  And, although our knowledge of His essence can not be known perfectly, we can get some knowledge of His essence from what He is not.

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 2, Article 1

Question 2. The existence of God

Does God exist?  In article 1, below, St. Thomas doesn't answer this question.  He explains why some people do and some people do not believe in God.  

Article 1. Whether the existence of God is self-evident?

Does God's being need to be proven?

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles.

First principles?  Have you ever heard someone say, "that's a given."  That means that it goes without saying.  Or that it is common knowledge to all.  Remember in grade school when they spoke of the "commutative principle" of addition?  That is a first principle of addition.  This is objector is talking about the first principles of proving something in philosophy.  That is what this objection is talking about.  And he says that the existence of God is a first principle, such as this.

But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

He says that St. John of Damascus says that the knowledge of God is in all men, therefore, the existence of God is self evident and does not need to be proven.

Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration.

Aristotle, the Philospher, said that those things are obvious which are recognized as soon as they are named.

Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part.

So, if we speak of a car and we speak of a car's headlight, we right away know that the car is much bigger than the headlight because the headlight is a part of the car.  This is obvious to all.

But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Everyone understands the word "God" to represent the being who is greater than anything which exists.  Therefore, God exists.

But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally.

 And that which exists in real life as well as in the mind is greater than that which exists only mentally.  (Compare this to the whole is greater than the part, above).

Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.

So, since, as soon as God exists in the mind, He also exists in reality, then it is obvious that God actually exists.

Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

No one can deny that truth exists.  Because, if one claims that the idea"truth does not exist" is true, then it there is at least one truth. And truth does exist.  And since God is truth, as Scripture says, "I am the way, the truth and the life".  Then, it is obvious that God exists.

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher(Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

 St.  Thomas argues against the idea that God's existence does not require proving.  Since atheists exist, he says,  and they deny the existence of God. That is proof that the existence of God is not obvious to all.

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us.

Huh?  I think he means that something can be self evident to some, but not to others.  But, we'll keep reading.

A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like.

Some ideas are obvious.  For example.  If we say that "a dog is an animal".  Those who have seen dogs, know that dogs are animals before they are told.  So, this is obvious.

If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown,

But, if someone has had no experience with dogs.  That person would not know what you were talking about when you say, "dog".  Therefore, for them, this idea of "a dog is an animal" is not obvious, since they have never heard of a dog.

the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition.

So, if the person is ignorant of a subject, to that person, the notion being discussed is not obvious.  *

* We have an example of this with native Americans.  It is said that when they first saw horses, they assumed they were giant dogs.  Whereas, to a European, the idea of a horse being an equine was self evident, to a native American, it was not. 

Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says

Boethius is an early Church philosopher and martyr.

(Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space."

Now, this I understand.  Boethius says that some concepts are self-evident only to those who have studied the idea (the learned).

Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident,

So, then, to those who believe in God, the idea that God is real, is obvious.

for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4).

??What the predicate and the subject have to do with it, I have no idea.

Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

Because God's nature can not be known by the human mind, it is only by studying His creation that we can come close to understanding the nature of God.  So, the existence of God is not obvious.

Reply to Objection 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature,

In general, men know that something exists which is greater than us.  But that is a vague idea of God.

 inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him.    

But all men desire to be  happy.  And all men desire to know God because to know God is to be happy.

This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

But many people mistake creatures and comforts for the ultimate good which is God.

Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body.

Not everyone understands the significance of the word, "God".

Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally.

Nor does everyone who understands the word, believe it signifies anything real.

Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

And just because some believe that something exists, that is not proof of its existence.  That is why some do not believe that God exists.

Reply to Objection 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.

The fact that truth exists, is self evident.  But not all truths are self evident.

Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 2

Question 2. The existence of God

Is the existence of God a matter of question?  I'm afraid so.  Before I came back to the Catholic Church, I denied the existence of God.  I was an atheist.  Before I fell away from Catholicism, I questioned the existence of God.

And I have noticed, unfortunately, that many times, when asked if they believe God exists, many, otherwise faithful people, will respond, "I'm not sure.  I believe He exists."  Not realizing, apparently, that they have contradicted themselves.  Because anyone that is not sure whether God exists, can not believe in Him.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.¹

WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.⁷And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?⁸

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",⁹ can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".¹⁰

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

St. Thomas answers the following questions:

1. Is the proposition "God exists" self-evident?
2. Is it demonstrable?
3. Does God exist?

Before we delve into his answers to these questions, how would you respond to them?

Do you believe that the existence of God is obvious?  Or is it questionable?

Well, if we think about it, the existence of the second question answers the first.  If God's existence needs to be demonstrated, then the existence of God is not self evident.  However,  I think the proper response is more complicated than that.  I have met people who never doubted the existence of God.  Men like Marcus Grodi, for example, the host of the popular, Journey Home program, seem genuinely surprised that anyone would ever question God's existence.

Therefore, I would say that there are some to whom God's existence is obvious and self evident.  But, others, like myself before I came back to the Catholic Church, not so much.  The difference, is to me, inexplicable from a human point of view.  It appears to be,  completely, a matter of grace.

How about the 2nd question?  Is the existence of God, demonstrable?

Today, I would answer in the affirmative.  But, long ago, I denied the existence of God and openly denied that anyone could demonstrate or prove His existence.

Then, one day, my wife said to me, "we're having a baby."  And from that moment, I believed in God.  I walked out of the room, in a daze, and suddenly, the hand of God was manifest to me in every part of the world.  From the clouds overhead to the blades of grass beneath me.

And this is what God says to us in Scripture.  That He demonstrates Himself to us everyday, in nature.  So, those who do not believe in God, are without excuse.

So, I answer that the existence of God is demonstrable, to those whose heart God has prepared to accept the demonstration and believe the proof.  One of my favorite movies, the story of Bernadette Sobirou and Our Lady of Lourdes, ends with the words, "To some no proof is necessary.  For others, no proof is ever enough."  Again, it is a matter of grace.

The 3rd question, "Does God exist?"

I answer this question with a resounding, "YES!"  There is no question in my mind that God exists.  Hopefully, as we review these proofs of God's existence which the Angelic Doctor has provided for us, we will be better prepared to respond to those who are seeking their Maker and who want to be united to Him for eternity.