What are the two components of Aquinas' Cosmological Argument?

Aquinas’ first way was focused on the concept of an ‘unmoved mover’. Aquinas states that all things in the world can change place, form or location. He illustrates through the concept of burning wood, that for a piece of wood to be heated, there must be a change made by fire. The movement, to which Aquinas is referring, is the movement from one state to another, from potentiality to actuality. Moreover, Aquinas posits that things cannot be moved by themselves, or there would be an infinite regress, which is said to be impossible. If we trace the sequence of movements to the beginning, we must arrive at a first mover. He concludes that, that ‘unmoved mover’ must be God.
Aquinas’ second way is similar to the first in the sense that he states every effect must have a cause because nothing can cause itself. If this was possible, then there will be an endless chain of effects (infinite regress).Referring to Aristotle, he argued that, if nothing caused the chain then there would be nothing, and there would be no chain at all. Everything in the universe that happens has a cause and such is dependent for something else for its existence. Therefore by power of reduction ad absurdum, there must be an ultimate cause, a being that began the chain of causes, an ‘uncaused causer’. Aquinas concludes that this uncaused causer is God.