I wasn't trying to be misleading, I was just trying to make a distinction that MIGHT explain how causation and authorship can coexist, but be different things.
I would disagree with your Pats comparison. In my post I specifically included the element of God's authority or power. The Pats did not have the power or ability as a matter of absolute truth or right to prevent the Broncos from winning. So, the Pats did not cause the loss by playing their hardest and losing to a better team that day. God is completely different, He does have the absolute power and right to make anything happen He chooses. I even said He was the only one who did. Because of God's absolute authority to "make happen" or "not make happen" anything on earth, I said that in a sense He "causes" these things.
A different way to look at it is that God has a plan, God knows all things, God always gets what He wants, God leaves nothing to chance, God "causes" all things. I think it is misleading for someone to then follow with "then God causes evil, we believe in a loving God, not your evil God". I think that is disingenuous.
I understand that the Pats vs. Broncos analogy is imperfect, but it does the job insofar as it shows that when, -- either for reasons of insufficient power (Pats) or infinite love (God), -- the outcome Pats or God did not wish for, happen, then you cannot say that Pats, or God, caused the outcome.