There's a difference between causes and intents. An intent doesn't start a new chain of causes - intents are simply dominos.A natural conclusion of what I just quoted is putting the gun manufacturer on trial for murder. Or the inventor of the first firearm. Or the inventor of the first bow and arrow.
That's just plain nonsense.
We can place fault on a person for shooting the gun, but that doesn't mean that earlier causes and effects didn't influence the scenario.
Are you suggesting that the intent of the god spontaneously appeared?This is purely common sense. You said the God had to intend to create the universe. Then the "effect" is predicated first on the "intent" to make it happen. Sounds like a "first cause" to me.
Unless you subscribe to acausality, that is impossible.
I think I see where you're being tripped up.
Keep in mind that there are still an infinite number of causes prior to the entry of a deity. A deity can enter at any one of the "dominos", and everything after the deity's entrance will have been influenced by that one domino.
So, despite the fact that there are a finite number of causes and effects between the deity's involvement and the creation of our universe, there are an infinite amount of causes and effects before the deity's involvement. This doesn't change the fact that there were an infinite amount of trials during which a deity could have acted on intent to create our universe.
Furthermore, I think that usages of the terms "cause", and "effect" are prohibiting you from fully understanding my intended message.
Instead, look at each one as a "trial". There were an infinite amount of trials, before the creation of our universe, in which a deity could become involved with our creation.