1. If the universe had a cause it must be intangible and intelligent (because an effect cannot be greater than it's cause) and not dependent upon time in order to exist (since time is a construct of the present universe).
2. The only things we know that fit the above criteria (not to mention a few others) are abstract concepts such as numbers

Notice I didn't go into greater theological detail to describe whom this God may be (though you can probably guess where I'm heading) and whether you posit, as Dawkins does, aliens or, as some playfully suggest, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are still left with an intelligent designer that meets the basic criteria of what we could call "god".

The only thing left to do once we accept the universe had an initial cause and that that cause could not have been an impersonal force is to determine what that personal entity is and how we are to relate to it.

#1 Causes can indeed be natural, but we are talking about what got everything going. What got it all going cant be natural simply because nothing natural existed (as Hawkins pointed out in his book 'A Brief History of Time').

#2 Even if you bring in the oscillating universe theory you are still left with the law of entropy (which begs the question of where the energy came from that is required to sustain the oscillations) and the fact that in the oscillating universe model you still have the problem of an actualized infinite set of moments in time (which begs the question of how we ever got to this particular moment in time).

#3 It's not an issue of transference so much as it is a logical conclusion of premises #1 and #2 being correct. In my estimation you can deny either premise (though the intellectual cost will be very high) but you can't escape the conclusion once you've accepted either of the two preceding premises.

I didn't, in this argument, show that #3 necessitates a theistic God, but I'm sure you know that's where I'm heading

I forgot to add in my post above that this argument really works better as part of a series of arguments (which I'll hopefully be able to post here) that together build a rather compelling (in my opinion anyway) case for theism.

#2 It seems very probable that the Universe has a beginning, but only the universe as we see it today. We would have a hard time proving what it was or was not before it's current incarnation. It wasn't necessarily a "Something from nothing" it could have been a something from something else.

#3 is a classical fallacy of transference, the association of cause and effect on one thing does not necessitate that relationship on another. Especially when it's very generalized. Similarities by relationship can improve your probabilities but do not guarantee they share the property.

Additionally: I think a fundamental difference between religious and scientific debates is the absolute vs. the probability. Arguments are much more credible when they aren't claiming absolutes that cannot be proven. Most of these things cannot be proven by our current means, I cannot say your argument is categorically false, but from my perspective not probable.