Question about second way of Thomas aquinas

[Mickey3456987]

Second way of st.aquinas
Concluded that

“There is a first cause” if I’m not wrong that is his conclusion.

Now if we think about nature of this cause
We can know too that this cause is personal
Since the eternal first cause if this cause is eternal then it’s effect must be eternal but many thing around as had a beginning therefore this eternal cause must have the ability to “choose” to create the finite effect.(eternal first cause must be personal)

Conclusion that “There is a personal first cause” is this all we can get out of this argument?

Can we prove something like immateriality or all-powerful ability of God out of this argument just like his first proof?
(I really like his first and third proof.)

Thank you.

 

[Richca]

In St Thomas’ Summa Theologica, the second way establishes that there must be a first efficient cause or there wouldn’t be any intermediate causes or ultimate or final cause/s. The final cause is very important in Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy, it’s one of the four causes of things, the other three being the formal, material, and efficient causes.

In this argument, I don’t see anything from Aquinas that the first cause must be personal, immaterial, or omnipotent. St Thomas is going to establish the nature of the first cause whom we call God in subsequent questions and answer these questions, i.e., that the first cause is personal, immaterial, and omnipotent. The fifth proof establishes an intelligent being that directs all natural things to their end. So, in this proof, Aquinas is hinting I think at least that the first cause is personal since intelligent beings are personal beings which he addresses in subsequent questions.