Suggesting that something caused something to happen is one thing and based on observations that is a reasonably rational position to take on the face of it. However to then run with that and suggest that cause is then god or that the assumption of a cause is evidence for a god is illogical.
Why?
If you want to use logic to suggest that all events have a cause you must stick with using logic and not stop when you have used logic enough to give a baseline that you can then paste any old rubbish to. Therefore an extension of that logic of a first cause must continue on and on for ever. Thus it is logical to state that the first cause argument offers nothing in a way of an explanation insofar that we learn nothing by following that route of inquiry.