[mannykannot]

Defining God to be whatever is assumed to be necessary is the opposite of a falsifiable hypothesis.

You say we are stuck with logical deductions, but the thing about them is that they are no more true than are their premises, so analytical metaphysics grounds out in a personal and subjective choice of axioms (subjective in the sense that no-one else is logically compelled to accept them.)

[aeonik]

I think if we found the beginning causal chain, then that would be falsifiable... theoretically.

Assuming God = Beginning of the causal chain, Finding this prime mover becomes a tangible physical hypothesis.

I don't think most religious people would agree with this definition of God though.

Also, if the information needed to confirm the beginning of the causal chain is locked behind an Event Horizon, then I don't know what to conclude about this.

I think it's possible to build a model in our slice of the universe that can let us peer beyond such limitations. But I can't be sure.

[mannykannot]

My apologies; I misunderstood your previous post. Nevertheless, let's suppose there is a falsifiable prime mover, and we have somehow discovered it. Being falsifiable, however, means we can ask what made it true rather than false, so the regression does not stop.

Rather ironically, the "there must be a prime mover" argument for God can only avoid being blatantly arbitrary, tendentious and self-serving by saying God had no choice in anything, which is definitely not what most religious people want to believe.

[aeonik]

I think I see what you mean.

To rephrase what you are saying for my own brain: An original causal event may still have dependencies that aren't necessarily bound to it in time or space. And these dependencies may have their own structure that are suspectable to infinite regress.

Perhaps an example of this is how all the fundamental constants have very specific values that are required aprori for anything to happen in the first place.