>>Napolean Hill refers to God as Infinite Intelligents, the First Cause<<

And there Napolean meets his Waterloo.

God cannot be a First Cause because that is nothing but an unknowable assumption.

Everything we know about causality shows as that it is an endless chain. Every cause is an effect of a previous cause. Every effect serves as a cause for an effect further down the road, so to speak.

So a First Cause is an effect of a previous cause that cannot exist since the effect is the First Cause. Hence, a First Cause violates everything we know about causality. It is, in fact, non-causal. If it is non-causal, then it cannot cause anything to happen.

It's the old chicken or egg argument all over again. Which came first? Can't have one without the other so which came first? This simple but profound question points out that the very idea of a First Cause is fundamentally flawed.

First Cause is a just a label for something we don't understand and lulls us into a false perception that because we have labeled it we must therefore understand it. So we say "god is the First Cause" without ever understanding that we are saying nothing.