Well the argument is that everything is contingent not its being, and therefore must find origin in an absolute, which logically must be necessary. The contingent can exist only derivatively, receiving its existence from the Absolute, is a simple deduction of reason. 

Schop I thought identified 4 categories of cause - that a cause must happen in time, that there cannot be simultaneous causation etc so "God" cannot be a cause in THAT sense...

And indeed, God could not be an "efficient cause", because He would be the source of the conditions for the possibility an efficient cause to exist - rather more like contingent beings must be ontologically dependent upon an absolute to donate being..

Don't people actually know things outside finite existence ?

Like the concept of infinity, infinite numbers that cannot be even or odd ?

IF the argument holds, and *some beings lack the power of their own existence, then being is given, *there is a prior giveness, so thought is NOT constrained to only move from the world to the worlds principals in the measure of what is, or what must be - only because being is NOT constrained by necessity to these manifestations, as if being MUST show itself in beings - this is not an autonomous metaphysics, but a participatory one....ie principals of necessity or positive grounds for some principal must be subordinate to "grace", the givenness of being....God is not the highest principal available to thought, nor the ground of being.

So things are not nessesary but "contingent" upon God donating being; being is given.

IF being were external to thought, and not given, then the actual content of thought, what thought apprehends, would not be reality itself but some image or impression of it, and then Schop'Kant would be on point.

So, IF the argument holds, and God donates being continuously to beings, then things exist already “intending” to be known - they purposely “fit” the human mind, as both ontologically participate in God.

And doesn't the fact that there there IS a constant correlation between that act of rational consciousness and the intelligibility of being, a correlation, in its indiscerptibility , strongly suggest the structure reality is already rational ?

So couldn't the question of the correspondence between the perception and the perceived be answered by ascribing that correspondence to a supereminent unity in which the poles of experience, the phenomena and perception, participate in ?

The unity itself cannot be grasped according to the discrete properties of finite existence, and so is transcendent perception....

Am I totally off here guys ?