Aquinas¡ second argument, the first cause, is trying to provide a rational proof for the existence of god. To construct his argument Aquinas is setting a group of premises that, in his opinion, irrefutably point to one valid solution, the intervention of a god like being in the creation of the universe.
             The first of these premises is the perpetual motion argument. Just as a machine can not be built to power it self indefinitely, nothing can be the cause of itself. In other words, by law of nature (that sits well with reason) no effect can cause the exact same effect. The result of this premise is that there has to be a chain of cause and effect, a very long one.
             Aquinas¡ second premise is that this chain can not go back for with on starting point. In his opinion, that would be equivalent to not having an engine to power this phenomenon. A very long series of cause and effect has to start with one centralistic cause that marked the beginning of all reactions.
             Under these two main premises, in Aquinas¡s opinion, god has to exist to make the first effort in the creation of the universe. Without his effort to cause the first reaction, the universe, as an ultimate effect, can not rationally exist. Further more, no other existence, or as he put it: ¡§¡Kif there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor intermediate efficient causes¡, can come to place.
             In trying to appeal to the rational, Aquinas fails to address several issues that would make his theory invulnerable, and as such the irrefutable truth. One objection that rose was the multiple series objection. Why can¡t there be more then one series of cause and effect with more than one point of origin? This objection allows Aquinas the stretch on his first premise, that nothing can cause itself, but does not except that there must be one series. There is no rational explanation in Aquinas¡ argument that would rule out that poss...