That's what you are doing when you posing non-attributes like "immaterial", "spaceless", "timeless", "devoid of entropy" etc. You are not describing anything or anyone in particular. You are just describing what it's not, and that's how we generally describe things that don't exist.
The positive description of the supernatural thing caused the universe to exist is that it is the Uncaused Cause.
Given that the thing, whatever it is exists (the causeless cause) then it is quite reasonable to provide further identifying descriptors about that thing in terms of whatever we can know about it including the traits that it does not exhibit.
In this way we can perhaps narrow down the nature of the Creator to being this as opposed to that. So, for example we could consider that none of the gods of pantheism meet the criteria because they posses traits that the creator does not posses.
A mind is a process though.
It's not a random and unconstrained firing of neurons that results in a "decision". It's a process of taking some input as a communication, and then taking that input through a sequence of steps in order to contextualize "the decision" or a "choice" as far as what to do.
What would be the "input" for your cosmic mind with nothing else around? What would prompt it's decisions? What would the choice be in context of nothing else existing?
Why must the mind take in communication or input before it does something? A mind with a (free) will is capable of having a thought or making a decision without any external input whatsoever.
I think you are confusing computing with consciousness. The process you describe is one of computing where inputs determine outputs, where it never thinks about anything but merely crunches data through a pre-determined algorithm.
The mind on the other hand is always thinking about things including abstract things that exist nowhere but in the mind itself. Thus a mind can exist and function within its own context without the need for any input whatsoever.
The uncaused cause certainly exists within its own context as that is the necessary nature of its being in that it is the thing that exists necessarily that is the cause of all causes
What prompted its decision is it own will, something that is also a hallmark of consciousness as opposed to computing.
You realize that thought process of the mind is a cause-effect process, right? Uncaused minds would have uncaused thoughts, which would either be extremely random, or wouldn't progress anywhere.
Hence, we couldn't justifiable call such mechanism a mind. All minds we know follow causal patterns.
Causality is not an essential precursor to mind. The minds we know follow causal patterns because they exist within time. A mind existing timelessly is not impossible if difficult to conceive of and only requires that the mind interacts with time at the point which it creates time within the universe.
But perhaps you are correct. The mind of the uncaused cause is completely unique, as it must be, and so we should describe this person in a unique way.
A curious insight from the Torah relates that the God of Israel described Himself to Moses as "I AM".
So where we humans will say "I think therefore I am.", the uncaused cause simply says "I AM".
, but I think it's important to make that distinction before some TAG proponent walks in and points out the same and claims that you have no justification for your reason because it's circular in nature, and they do, because it's a revelation from a more reliable God.
