" So, he is telling that events cause other events, but an event cannot cause itself to happen. His third premise, perhaps the most argumentative, is found when he says, "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 one." This is saying that everything has resulted from another cause, but there was one "first cause." This first cause eliminates the idea that all the efficient causes can cause each other in a chain-like sequence. If there was not a first cause, then according to Aquinas, there would be no effects, or efficient causes. He wraps up this proof simply by saying, "It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God." He is claiming that God is the first uncaused, cause, but it has had great effects. With all of this, one can see why the premises of Aquinas support the argument that God exist. .
Thomas Aquinas" second proof seems to be deductively sound, but not really necessary. He seems to go out of his way to say things that are obvious and unnecessary. His proofs can be used as a foundation for building stronger logical arguments for the existence of God, but should not be used as the only needed proofs. This is because of the objections that are raised in this proof. The first objection is, "What physical proof is there to God's existence?" This is a rather vague objection since every single person who has believe in God has asked themselves for tangible evidence of his existence, and only few have received. The next two objections are not self-answering, but rather a bit more complicated.
The first major objection is whether God is the first cause Himself. Aquinas writes, "There is no case known in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
