ALL experiments that have been carried ARE causal. In other words one has to create a vacuum to measure these events. The creation of the vacuum is causal.
Sorry, didn't have time to get back to this until now. Yes experiments are causal, but empty space need not have a cause if we're operating under the assumptions you've laid out. Empty space, by definition, is not physical, and therefore can exist without cause - playing by the same rules as your hypothesized intelligence. By Occam's razor we can see that the supposition of preexisting nothing is much simpler (therefore probably more likely) than a preexisting intelligence of infinite complexity. Really, as far as base assumptions go, they're opposite ends of the spectrum.
Another fact you're missing here is that the experimenters that pull a vacuum in order to study quantum fluctuations, not to generate then. Empty space is literally everywhere and all of it is teeming with particles bursting into existence without cause. In fact it appears that most of the mass of the things you interact with everyday comes from the quantum fluctuations of empty space. So while the vacuum has a cause, it is not the cause of the virtual particles that burst into existence from nothing. They literally have no cause.
Current evidence currently points to the big bang. The red shift and cosmic background radiation are the two strongest evidences for this. Corroborative to this is also the Hubble constant. No other theory has such strong support.
Current evidence points to the fact that the universe is expanding from a single point of enormous density. My point was that there are a number of possible, mathematically consistent, explanations for what happened prior to the big bang to cause it. Not all of these require our universe to have burst into existence at that time. If you're interested, I highly suggest you read a book on cosmology. Or you can PM me for some Cliff's notes I guess.
Because it is not physical it therefore must be ex Nihilo. And if that is the case, the strongest idea is God.
Also the argument is logically consistent and uses material implication.
You're still making a huge leap to get to an extra-physical intelligence. A leap, I might add, that needn't be made. All evidence points to the possibility of something from nothing (and in fact the total mass-energy of our universe is zero, supporting the idea that this is what happened) and the early universe appears to have been without intelligent order, which is what you'd expect from a scenario like this.
Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate any reason why a first cause needs to include some intelligence. Since it is possible to come up with explanations without this, I see no reason to complicate things.
So can I have my $500 now?
Sorry, nope. Even if you were on to something, I don't think you've satisfied the original poster's requirements for evidence of god.