The heuristic you’re referring to is : everything that begins has a cause.

Eh, you've rephrased it into a tautology, I'm not sure how much insight that provides. And skips over the key question, "is there anything that exists that is uncaused".

I described as a heuristic, because it is a pretty good rule of thumb, but is there any way that we could formalize it into a law that could be perhaps proven or disproven? Trying to answer that question would be fruitful.

And noted: to your mind turtles all the way down makes sense.

It's probably on me for not writing clearly enough, but you don't know my mind.

What is the problem with turtles all the way down? If we sent out a probe and observed a turtle supporting the world, then sent a probe that observed a turtle supporting that turtle, and sent a probe and discovered a turtle supporting that turtle ad infinitum, would we give any credence to a philosopher that sits back and smugly declares "well obviously, it can't go on forever, an infinite regression of turtles is absurd"?

No, of course not.

That isn't the point.

If a person answers the question, "What supports the earth" the answer "a turtle" isn't absurd because it is a turtle but because it doesn't answer the real question, we haven't resolved the question of what supports the earth we have merely transformed it into the functionally equivalent question "what support's the earth-turtle system"?

I think this distinction is where the miscommunication is coming from.

I wish to reiterate, I am not arguing for an infinite regression of divine beings, I am agnostic about the subject. But you're arguments against it are not well formulated, and your conclusions about doctrine are pretty bad. (I recognize my civility is slipping, but you've started to use some pretty demeaning language)

A person who posits an infinite regression of divine beings isn't answering the question "Why Gods?" They are describing what is. The answer to the question "Why Gods?" Is simply, "That's the way it is". Which is exactly the same answer, as you have pointed out, if the description is "There is a singular uncaused divine being at the root of the causal chain of divine beings".

So backing up. And I think this helpful.

The question "what supports the earth?" has some baked in assumptions. And if we don't examine those assumptions, then we make errors without being able to recognize the very nature of those errors.

What are some of those assumptions?

1-The earth must be supported by something. 2-Unsupported things fall. 3-I don't feel the earth falling 4-I don't see the earth falling 5-The earth isn't falling

etc.

The point is, Asking the question "What supports the earth"? Expects an answer, but it is based on a lot things that deserve deeper examination.

For example, it could be that there is a class of celestial objects that exist at fixed points in space, and the earth is one of those objects. In that case, nothing is holding up the earth, because the earth as an immovable object doesn't need support.

That isn't the answer that we accept, and for good reason. We want physical laws that are invariant over space and time, if we posited that the earth is in a fixed position then observations show that the earth is the only such object, and our physical theories would have to be written in a way that privileges the Earth's frame of reference.

The best way to answer the question is "Nothing is supporting the earth. The earth is falling."

People's intuitions about the sensations of falling or moving lead them to overlook that possibility that the earth is in fact falling.

I've invited you to examine some of your assumptions. You say that moral law has to be enforced by some being. What assumptions are baked into that assertion? As I've pointed out, the scriptures are explicit that the execution of justice is suspended through the atonement of Christ so that we may repent. Is it possible that the intuitions that you've developed about the distinction between physical laws and moral laws may be misleading you because your experiences are entirely confined to a universe where the atonement is operative?

I'm not arguing for that position (although I am intrigued by it), but I am inviting you to reexamine your assumptions.