>>722710
>uncaused causer, or an unmoved mover, etc.
Remember that what those terms denote is the metaphysical distinction between act and potency, where only God, a being who is pure act, can ultimately be the explanation for the existence of the universe given what we know about reality. This entails a being who necessarily possesses intellect and will, from the simple fact that the universe does not have to exist and that what exists in the universe must reflect its source. What a human ever means by the use of the term personal, moreover, is simply a being with intellect and free will, hence God is also personal.
These links offer a more detailed explanation, but whole books have been written on these topics. Please heed the following advice from the first link on analogy:
>Second, at least for Thomists, when attributing intellect, knowledge, etc. both to God and to us, we have to understand the relevant terms analogously rather than univocally. It’s not that God has knowledge in just the sense we do, only more of it. It’s rather that there is in God something analogous to what we call knowledge in us, even if (since He is absolutely simple, eternal, etc.) it cannot be the same thing we have.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-divine-intellect.html
https://strangenotions.com/how-god-can-know-and-cause-a-universe-of-things/