Can There Be Godhood Without A First Cause?

I see no reason why changing objects cannot be infinitely changing objects.

The first (and best) argument for God of Aquinas is stated:

(1) Everything that is changing is being changed by something else;
(2) But the series of changers and things changing cannot be infinitely
long; therefore
(3) There must be a first cause of all change, which we call God.

I say there need be only “change” and not a “first” change. I see an unending cycle of evolution from the simple to the complex to Godhood then back to the simple, etc. I see no reason why change cannot be infinitely long. Our minds do seem to demand a first cause but our minds can demand unreal things.

The idea that the first cause disappears when the second cause comes, is essentially real. The idea that the first cause is still operating after the second cause is set in motion is wishful thinking when related to evolution and Godhood. But the “second cause” can be defined or seen in the “offspring” of Godhood, the Holy Spirit, which carries the Sacred Parent forward in evolution, just as human children carry their parent's genes forward, even if the parents don't really exist anymore.

Yet, could there be a very first cause of all this? There would always be another cause before it, so the “first cause” concept seems to takes place not in reality but in a wishful definition of reality. Need we “define” this unendingness and infinity as “God?” A definition is only a definition, I affirm the real object, and I see an unending cycle of real objects.

Therefore, the First Cause argument of Aquinas is only a definition, a denoting, a name, and not a real Object God. The Real God, or Godhood, does exist in a cycle of Object Godhoods.