God isn't the First Cause

[Partinobodycula]

God isn’t the first cause. This statement isn’t meant to be argumentative. It’s meant to elicit a reasoned discussion about the nature of God.

Some of this forum’s users may be aware from past discussions that I’m a solipsist. But just to clarify, I’m actually a soft solipsist. Which means that I hold to the position that nothing can be known to exist outside of my own mind. As opposed to a hard solipsist who holds to the position that their mind is without question the only thing that exists. But there’s an interesting correlation between why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist, and why God isn’t the first cause.

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought. Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself. Therefore consciousness must have emerged from something else. Some underlying source. Even if everything is all in my mind, my mind is dependent for it’s existence on something more primary than itself.

This argument explains one of the reasons as to why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist. But curiously, this argument also applies to God, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being. Consciousness can’t give rise to itself. It must emerge from something which is itself, not conscious.

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

 

[Glomung]

You have no knowledge of the nature of God, and truth told, no knowledge of your own nature. So, whatever arguments you may want to make, either for or against your position, are made in ignorance, and thus are a complete and utter waste of time.

 

[meltzerboy]

God isn’t the first cause. This statement isn’t meant to be argumentative. It’s meant to elicit a reasoned discussion about the nature of God.

Some of this forum’s users may be aware from past discussions that I’m a solipsist. But just to clarify, I’m actually a soft solipsist. Which means that I hold to the position that nothing can be known to exist outside of my own mind. As opposed to a hard solipsist who holds to the position that their mind is without question the only thing that exists. But there’s an interesting correlation between why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist, and why God isn’t the first cause.

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought. Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself. Therefore consciousness must have emerged from something else. Some underlying source. Even if everything is all in my mind, my mind is dependent for it’s existence on something more primary than itself.

This argument explains one of the reasons as to why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist. But curiously, this argument also applies to God, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being. Consciousness can’t give rise to itself. It must emerge from something which is itself, not conscious.

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

G-d just is. He exists, has always existed, and will always exist. He therefore doesn’t need a cause for His consciousness. Further, when speaking of G-d’s consciousness, we are speaking of a qualitative difference between it and human consciousness, not merely a quantitative difference. It does not have to obey the rules of nature or physics. But even on the quantitative level, there is quite a difference between human consciousness and divine consciousness, as there is between human consciousness and animal consciousness. As Shakespeare says in Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

 

[Tim_D]

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

Even with my extremely limited knowledge and understanding of philosophy in general and theology specifically, I can see that you have absolutely no concept of the nature of God.

You need to begin at the beginning.

 

[seagal]

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

According to your philosophy, I can’t even prove, let alone assert, that I am a conscious being. Who do you think you’re having this discussion with anyway?

 

[Tomdstone]

Who do you think you’re having this discussion with anyway?

Interesting question to a solipsist.

 

[spiderweb]

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought. Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself.

How do you know that this is a true assertion?

Is it not possible that something exists simultaneously with it’s consciousness? If God has always existed without a beginning, then his consciousness has always existed also without a beginning. Therefore there was no emergent phenomenon with God.

While the emergent phenomenon may be correct for creatures with a material brain, how do you know that this applies to God, who is a Spirit and therefor has no “brain”?

Being a solipsist as you state, you can’t even “know” whether your premise is correct.

 

[MarcoPolo]

He can’t cause Himself.

The problem with this assertion is it uses the rules of the created universe, (i.e. the idea of time and “before” “after”) and tries to impose it on a being outside of that created universe. In other words, it is fallacious to appeal to rules in the created universe to a being external to that system.

 

[Kurisu35712]

God isn’t the first cause. This statement isn’t meant to be argumentative. It’s meant to elicit a reasoned discussion about the nature of God.

Some of this forum’s users may be aware from past discussions that I’m a solipsist. But just to clarify, I’m actually a soft solipsist. Which means that I hold to the position that nothing can be known to exist outside of my own mind. As opposed to a hard solipsist who holds to the position that their mind is without question the only thing that exists. But there’s an interesting correlation between why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist, and why God isn’t the first cause.

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought. Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself. Therefore consciousness must have emerged from something else. Some underlying source. Even if everything is all in my mind, my mind is dependent for it’s existence on something more primary than itself.

This argument explains one of the reasons as to why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist. But curiously, this argument also applies to God, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being. Consciousness can’t give rise to itself. It must emerge from something which is itself, not conscious.

Others have answered better than I likely can, but frankly Partinobodycula, you’re entirely incorrect at the most basic level of your assertion. You’re asserting that God can’t cause Himself to exist because He is conscious, by your definition which you have not defined, based on an understanding of consciousness that finds its origin in your own experiences.

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

The bolded portion is the most illogical part of your assertion. You are ascribing your own mental limitations onto a being that you suggest as the potential source of your own existence. You are also assuming that, because a human cannot bring itself into existence, and is conscious, God likewise could not have brought Himself into existence because He is conscious.

1. God is not conscious as we are. The Mind of God is so utterly outside of our grasp that even eternity spent in Heaven will not be enough to ever fully understand, which is why Heaven is often described as a source of endless wonder. God’s Mind is the very definition of unlimited, and as a result, we cannot limit Him with the same conditions our own minds face.
2. You give no reason as to why God cannot be both conscious and the First Cause other than “I cannot cause myself, so God cannot cause Himself.” There is no true logic there.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

God is the beginning. Period. God doesn’t need anything or anyone to cause Him. Goldman do anything, including creating Himself. There does not need to be a justification as to why God exists. He just is.
Nothing can be known to exist outside of your own mind? What about the Earth, other people. The list is endless.

Are you saying that in your mind God does not exist?

 

[808Catholic]

God is the beginning. Period. God doesn’t need anything or anyone to cause Him. Goldman do anything, including creating Himself. There does not need to be a justification as to why God exists. He just is.
Nothing can be known to exist outside of your own mind? What about the Earth, other people. The list is endless.

Are you saying that in your mind God does not exist?

I believe the OP has confused himself. By attempting to define existence, he attempts to be God himself. By attempting to challenge the existence of God, he attempts to remove Whom Cannot Be Removed. God is the very reason we have intellect to ask the questions the OP is asking. Without God, we are just another species of animal living our lives until we die.

 

[Partinobodycula]

You have no knowledge of the nature of God, and truth told, no knowledge of your own nature. So, whatever arguments you may want to make, either for or against your position, are made in ignorance, and thus are a complete and utter waste of time.

Not to be snide, but you do realize that this reasoning could be applied to any arguments that you might present as well. They’re a complete and utter waste of time, because you don’t know the nature of God any more than I do. But seeing as how this is a forum for discussion perhaps we could attempt to overlook what we don’t know, and try to reason things out by means of what we do know.

Frankly I hadn’t expected the level of response that this post has elicited, most of which seem to boil down to the fact that I don’t understand the nature of God, and so I don’t know what I’m talking about. This may be true, but few of the responses thus far have done anything to help alleviate my supposed ignorance. I will address those who have at least made an effort to do so.

G-d just is. He exists, has always existed, and will always exist. He therefore doesn’t need a cause for His consciousness. Further, when speaking of G-d’s consciousness, we are speaking of a qualitative difference between it and human consciousness, not merely a quantitative difference. It does not have to obey the rules of nature or physics. But even on the quantitative level, there is quite a difference between human consciousness and divine consciousness, as there is between human consciousness and animal consciousness.

I understand and appreciate your position, both from the qualitative and quantitative nature of God’s consciousness. But my argument isn’t based upon either the qualitative or quantitative nature of God’s consciousness, but rather upon the nature of consciousness itself. I could reason that my consciousness is both qualitatively and quantitatively greater than that of a cockroach, but that doesn’t mean that my consciousness is any less emergent than its is. Thus my argument isn’t based upon either the quality or quantity of God’s consciousness, but simply upon the emergent nature of consciousness itself.

The problem with this assertion is it uses the rules of the created universe, (i.e. the idea of time and “before” “after”) and tries to impose it on a being outside of that created universe. In other words, it is fallacious to appeal to rules in the created universe to a being external to that system.

This at least lays the logical framework for a rebuttal. God exists outside of time, thus it’s fallacious to apply a temporal concept of consciousness to a non-temporal being. But this really doesn’t address the argument. The argument for those who seem to have missed it, is this, consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Something must exist in order for it to be aware that it exists. Even if these two things are temporally indistinguishable one is still an emergent property of the other. Thus God isn’t the first cause, rather that from which His consciousness emerges is the first cause.

If this isn’t true then it’s logically consistent for a hard solipsist to argue that their consciousness is the true first cause, and there’s no way to refute it. The only possible way to refute hard solipsism is to argue that consciousness can’t give rise to itself. But if this is true for the hard solipsist, then it’s true for God as well.

According to your philosophy, I can’t even prove, let alone assert, that I am a conscious being. Who do you think you’re having this discussion with anyway?

Let me reiterate, I’m not a hard solipsist, I’m a soft solipsist. I would love to address everyone’s preconceptions about what I must believe, but alas that isn’t what this thread is about. Solipsism, like any other philosophy or religion is far more nuanced than what can be contained in a soundbite like “cogito ergo sum”. Perhaps at some point you’ll be able to understand that. I certainly hope so, not so much for my sake, as for yours. As meltzerboy said earlier, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Perhaps none of us should forget that.

 

[fnr]

God isn’t the first cause. This statement isn’t meant to be argumentative. It’s meant to elicit a reasoned discussion about the nature of God.

Some of this forum’s users may be aware from past discussions that I’m a solipsist. But just to clarify, I’m actually a soft solipsist. Which means that I hold to the position that nothing can be known to exist outside of my own mind. As opposed to a hard solipsist who holds to the position that their mind is without question the only thing that exists. But there’s an interesting correlation between why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist, and why God isn’t the first cause.

As a scientist, I will do my best to provide evidence that your assertions are incorrect.

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.

Defining “consciousness” is actually quite slippery. When it comes to human consciousness, I’d agree that it’s an emergent phenomenon (but would have a very hard time proving it… neuroscientists are still using “internal models” to explain consciousness emerging from the nervous system, which is kinda cheating). The best ontological definition of human consciousness is still experiential, which we experience as an integral of qualia, will, thought, emotion, and embodiment (these correspond roughly to the Aristotelian “senstive soul,” “rational soul,” and “vegetative soul”). The “emergence” of consciousness requires a non-conscious medium from which it can emerge: the brain. To posit consciousness separate from the body is entirely speculative, and walks very close to the Homunculus Fallacy.

It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought.

“Coherent patterns of thought” as we experience them are not aphysical phenomena, but contingent on a nervous system. That may be the “something in which to form” those patterns to which you’re referring, but that’s not clear. You’re seeming to make a Cartesian argument for consciousness, but that’s been soundly debunked.

Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself. Therefore consciousness must have emerged from something else.

Again, that’s true for consciousness as people experience it. Simply put, every human we know had a mother and a father. To make the jump from “human consciousness” to God – an omniscient, omnipotent spirit, is not logical in the least, but analogical. We have no reason to believe that God’s consciousness is anything like ours, as ours is contingent upon a biology that is calibrated (by evolution) to the gravity and biosphere of Earth.

Even if everything is all in my mind, my mind is dependent for it’s existence on something more primary than itself.

That’s not logical. First, everything is not all in your mind. Take your finger and push gently on your eye through your eyelid… the distortion in your vision is proof that your perception of sense-data/experience of qualia is dependent on your sense organs. Do the “blind spot experiment” (hometrainingtools.com/a/blind-spot-science-project) to demonstrate that the position of your optic nerve affects your vision. Those experiments alone prove that your mind is dependent on more elementary things.

This argument explains one of the reasons as to why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist.

Solipsism is logically inconsistent. Logic itself, absent independent data, can generate no certain information. That’s mathematically proven in Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Thought itself provides no constraints on experience… why can’t you just say that you’d rather be on a mountaintop eating a brownie and suddenly experience it? Because your thoughts are dependent on the created order.

But curiously, this argument also applies to God, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being. Consciousness can’t give rise to itself. It must emerge from something which is itself, not conscious.

Whoa! Foul! I will say that God is conscious, but am not about to assert that God’s consciousness is anything resembling mine. To make a logical jump from human experience to God’s properties is entirely unjustified.

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

In your conception of God being contingent on something else, you still run into the problem that infinity does not exist in reality, at least in the past (we know from cosmological physics – particularly the Guth-Borde-Vilenkin theorem that the universe had a beginning). At the beginning of the universe, there was situation where spacetime and matter had no prior existence – mathematically and physically speaking. You’re positing something other than consciousness that caused the cosmos to begin to exist? How so?

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I believe the OP has confused himself. By attempting to define existence, he attempts to be God himself. By attempting to challenge the existence of God, he attempts to remove Whom Cannot Be Removed. God is the very reason we have intellect to ask the questions the OP is asking. Without God, we are just another species of animal living our lives until we die.

Exactly!

 

[spiderweb]

This at least lays the logical framework for a rebuttal. God exists outside of time, thus it’s fallacious to apply a temporal concept of consciousness to a non-temporal being. But this really doesn’t address the argument. The argument for those who seem to have missed it, is this, consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Something must exist in order for it to be aware that it exists. Even if these two things are temporally indistinguishable one is still an emergent property of the other. Thus God isn’t the first cause, rather that from which His consciousness emerges is the first cause.

My original question still stands. Is it not possible that an infinite God who had no beginning would also have a consciousness that also had no beginning. If his consciousness had no beginning, then it truly never “emerged”, but rather was always there.

Furthermore, the “first cause” requires an action. Consciousness alone never produces an action, rather it is the person or being (in this case God) to whom the consciousness belongs that produces the action. Thus God is indeed the first cause.

As you state, “God isn’t the first cause, rather that from which his consciousness emerges is the first cause.” Assuming that that is true, what does anyone’s consciousness emerge from? I would say that consciousness emerges from the person to whom that consciousness belongs to. In the case of the consciousness of God, “that from which his consciousness emerged from” is God. Therefor God is indeed the first cause.

 

[meltzerboy]

As a scientist, I will do my best to provide evidence that your assertions are incorrect.

Defining “consciousness” is actually quite slippery. When it comes to human consciousness, I’d agree that it’s an emergent phenomenon (but would have a very hard time proving it… neuroscientists are still using “internal models” to explain consciousness emerging from the nervous system, which is kinda cheating). The best ontological definition of human consciousness is still experiential, which we experience as an integral of qualia, will, thought, emotion, and embodiment (these correspond roughly to the Aristotelian “senstive soul,” “rational soul,” and “vegetative soul”). The “emergence” of consciousness requires a non-conscious medium from which it can emerge: the brain. To posit consciousness separate from the body is entirely speculative, and walks very close to the Homunculus Fallacy.

“Coherent patterns of thought” as we experience them are not aphysical phenomena, but contingent on a nervous system. That may be the “something in which to form” those patterns to which you’re referring, but that’s not clear. You’re seeming to make a Cartesian argument for consciousness, but that’s been soundly debunked.

Again, that’s true for consciousness as people experience it. Simply put, every human we know had a mother and a father. To make the jump from “human consciousness” to God – an omniscient, omnipotent spirit, is not logical in the least, but analogical. We have no reason to believe that God’s consciousness is anything like ours, as ours is contingent upon a biology that is calibrated (by evolution) to the gravity and biosphere of Earth.

That’s not logical. First, everything is not all in your mind. Take your finger and push gently on your eye through your eyelid… the distortion in your vision is proof that your perception of sense-data/experience of qualia is dependent on your sense organs. Do the “blind spot experiment” (hometrainingtools.com/a/blind-spot-science-project) to demonstrate that the position of your optic nerve affects your vision. Those experiments alone prove that your mind is dependent on more elementary things.

Solipsism is logically inconsistent. Logic itself, absent independent data, can generate no certain information. That’s mathematically proven in Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Thought itself provides no constraints on experience… why can’t you just say that you’d rather be on a mountaintop eating a brownie and suddenly experience it? Because your thoughts are dependent on the created order.

Whoa! Foul! I will say that God is conscious, but am not about to assert that God’s consciousness is anything resembling mine. To make a logical jump from human experience to God’s properties is entirely unjustified.

In your conception of God being contingent on something else, you still run into the problem that infinity does not exist in reality, at least in the past (we know from cosmological physics – particularly the Guth-Borde-Vilenkin theorem that the universe had a beginning). At the beginning of the universe, there was situation where spacetime and matter had no prior existence – mathematically and physically speaking. You’re positing something other than consciousness that caused the cosmos to begin to exist? How so?

Impressive scientific analysis which certainly answers the OP’s question. And part of the analysis is the issue I brought up concerning the qualitative difference between G-d’s consciousness and our own, which the OP appreciated but rejected.

OP, can you respond to this brilliant and comprehensive rebuttal?

 

[Tomdstone]

I will say that God is conscious, but am not about to assert that God’s consciousness is anything resembling mine. To make a logical jump from human experience to God’s properties is entirely unjustified.

What do you mean when you say that God is conscious?

 

[seagal]

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

Two points:

1. God didn’t cause himself. He always existed.
2. If this non-conscious being you postulate caused God, then he is not God. The non-conscious being would be God. So God is still the first cause.

 

[Partinobodycula]

First, thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far. It’s been helpful. Forgive me however if I don’t respond to each post individually, but I’ll attempt to distill the discussion down to what seems to be the main point of disagreement. Which is that I contend that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It’s an attribute that something possesses, but which can’t exist independent of the thing which possesses it. Thus it’s not primary, it’s not the first cause. It’s essentially an effect with an underlying cause. And if God is a conscious being, then He’s not the first cause either, that from which His consciousness emerges is the true first cause.

The counter to this argument seems to be, and forgive me if I misrepresent some of your arguments, is that God’s consciousness isn’t like our consciousness. It isn’t an emergent phenomenon. It has an existence independent of, and uncaused by anything else. This may run counter to what we experientially know to be true, but is none-the-less the case. God is a conscious being, and God is the first cause.

But therein lies the problem, a hard solipsist would actually agree with you. They would argue that consciousness is indeed the first cause, but it’s not God’s consciousness that’s the first cause, it’s theirs. Now you could no doubt form a counter argument to this position, but once you’ve opened the discussion up to the possibility of consciousness as the first cause then solipsism becomes a much easier position to defend.

Let me reiterate, I’m a soft solipsist. I don’t believe that my consciousness is the first cause. Because I believe that consciousness is by its very nature an emergent phenomenon. But such a position obviously has implications when it comes to an understanding of the nature of God, and whether Aquinas’ first cause is a conscious being at all.

My original question still stands. Is it not possible that an infinite God who had no beginning would also have a consciousness that also had no beginning. If his consciousness had no beginning, then it truly never “emerged”, but rather was always there.

One could look at it that way if they wanted to, but if we use Aquinas’ second way as a guide then the first cause is that which isn’t contingent upon anything else for its existence. Thus even though God’s consciousness may be co-eternal with that which underlies it, it’s still contingent upon that underlying cause for its existence. First cause isn’t something that’s differentiated by their positions in time. Even though they’re both eternal, only one is the first cause.

I would say that consciousness emerges from the person to whom that consciousness belongs to. In the case of the consciousness of God, “that from which his consciousness emerged from” is God. Therefor God is indeed the first cause.

Again, you could look at it that way, but just as with the previous argument we have an underlying cause and a contingent effect. Only one is the true first cause. Thus that which Aquinas identifies as the first cause, that which he identifies as God, has none of the aspects of a conscious being. It’s a mindless, emotionless entity. The conscious God of the bible isn’t Aquinas’ first cause.

As I stated in the beginning, I’m not attempting to be argumentative. I’m attempting to find a rational explanation for why solipsism can’t be true.

 

[spiderweb]

One could look at it that way if they wanted to, but if we use Aquinas’ second way as a guide then the first cause is that which isn’t contingent upon anything else for its existence. Thus even though God’s consciousness may be co-eternal with that which underlies it, it’s still contingent upon that underlying cause for its existence. First cause isn’t something that’s differentiated by their positions in time. Even though they’re both eternal, only one is the first cause.

Again, you could look at it that way, but just as with the previous argument we have an underlying cause and a contingent effect. Only one is the true first cause. Thus that which Aquinas identifies as the first cause, that which he identifies as God, has none of the aspects of a conscious being. It’s a mindless, emotionless entity. The conscious God of the bible isn’t Aquinas’ first cause.

As I stated in the beginning, I’m not attempting to be argumentative. I’m attempting to find a rational explanation for why solipsism can’t be true.

Aquinas would disagree with the underlined statement above.

Aquinas: Article 8
The knowledge of God is the cause of things. For the knowledge of God is to all creatures what the knowledge of the artificer is to things made by his art. Now the knowledge of the artificer is the cause of the things made by his art from the fact that the artificer works by his intellect. Hence the form of the intellect must be the principle of action; as heat is the principle of heating. Nevertheless, we must observe that a natural form, being a form that remains in that to which it gives existence, denotes a principle of action according only as it has an inclination to an effect; and likewise, the intelligible form does not denote a principle of action in so far as it resides in the one who understands unless there is added to it the inclination to an effect, which inclination is through the will. For since the intelligible form has a relation to opposite things (inasmuch as the same knowledge relates to opposites), it would not produce a determinate effect unless it were determined to one thing by the appetite, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. ix). Now it is manifest that God causes things by His intellect, since His being is His act of understanding; and hence His knowledge must be the cause of things, in so far as His will is joined to it. Hence the knowledge of God as the cause of things is usually called the “knowledge of approbation.”

And while he argues that the knowledge of God is the cause of things, knowledge alone doesn’t cause anything. For as he states further on "knowledge must be the cause of things, in so far as his will is joined to it.

I would also say that Aquinas first cause argument is only to argue for God’s existence. It is not applying that argument for any attributes of God such as knowledge, will, love, or any other attributes. He argues all of those things separately.

I am curious to know that if you don’t believe in God as the first cause, what do you propose is the first cause?