I chased down your links. If you've seen anything of what I've written then you must know I am profoundly anti-Kantian. The 'effects' link relies upon 'a priori' reasoning and I argue there is no such thing.
The other links are fine but the 'evidence' is all begging the question as to what the 'source' of all the those 'effects' or 'knowing' are, without which there is no such 'cause.'
Every single argument made there can also be used to support the idea that the 'intelligence' behind the cause is not separate from the Universe itself. There is one line from the Bible somewhere that I do agree with, although the author probably means it in a different way than I do, but maybe not. That is part of what is wrong with the religion today, what people think the writers were talking about is not what they were talking about, just what we think they meant today. But I intend to get into that subject another time, I just mention it in passing. Anyway, close as I can remember, the line is:
In Him we Breathe, move, and have our being.
Well I understand this point anyway. Every existing substance (whether compound or simple) is ultimately reducible to its essence (what a thing is) and being (act of existence).* From this we can see that being does not properly belong to the essence of a thing. Things do not exist by nature. Things only participate in existence. This helps explain how God can be transcendent; how He can be in things while not being the things themselves.
_________________________________________________
For example, I know the "whatness" of my dog, even though he is now dead. My dog no longer exists, but his "whatness" is known to me now; his "whatness" (essence) exists now. Therefore, being does not properly belong to the nature of my dog.