First of all you are being fast and loose with the term evidence. Postulating the idea of an infinite regress of cause and effect is not the same as evidence for it.
I've suggested it's a deduction from the available evidence - everything we can measure or detect is part of a chain of cause and effect. If we deduce from this that everything is an effect of an earlier cause, we have an infinite regress. I've been quite open about that process, there's no 'fast and loose' with it.
You appeal to science for evidence and yet an infinite regression of cause and effect is unfalsifiable.
It is falsifiable - all you need do is provide a reliable basis for accepting an effect without a cause, and my deductive logic is undermined.
The problem is this if you are asserting that an unfalsifiable is the explanation of the universe you cannot then discount anything that is reasonable and unfalsifiable.
I've not asserted anything, I've deduced it from the available evidence.
Infinity is not observed in the universe. While it is reasonable as a reasoned deduction it is therefore not the immediate course reason can follow and you are thus wrong to posit your theory as the only reasonable one.
I didn't say it was the only reasonable one. If you think there's a better explanation feel free to posit it, along with the supporting evidence and rationale.
We see a universe for which there is no evidence of infinity( An infinite future has not after all happened.
That rather depends on your view of what time is, and whether our perception of it is limited. It's entirely possible that the entirety of time co-exists as a block, a dimension through which our awareness has limited capacity to alter its flow.
We do see evidence for infinity - we see no uncaused effects, which means whatever we can deduce is itself the result of a precursor. That we lack reliable data means we rely on deduction rather than direct confirmation. Our mathematical models, which have made predictions which were then experimentally verified, suggest an infinite future for our universe.
Cause and effect in the universe therefore might lead us reasonable to think that it had a cause.
I don't see how, but by all means make the case.
Finally in terms of Ockham's Razor you could well have not only introduced entities beyond necessity but comprehensively done so by suggesting infinite causes when one infinite cause would do.
If you do not have an infinite chain of causes you are forced to try to explain your singular infinite cause. The infinite chain of events does not require anything new to be added to the model, your singular infinite cause is of a different nature - Occam's Razor is not in your favour on that.
It is ridiculous to suggest as you do that cause is irrelevant in an infinite chain of causation, since you provide an infinity of causation.
So you have causation for any given element, but the idea of 'A' definitive or original cause is nonsensical. It's asking 'what's the other side of an infinite horizon', what's 'infinity plus one' - it isn't defined.
I don't feel you have adequately shown that the infinite chain of causation was neither created nor uncreated.
I feel it's quite apparent from the available evidence - we have no example of anything that's not the effect of a prior cause. Why presume for no reason that at some arbitrary point there was one?
In terms of energy not being able to be created or destroyed the question still remains.....why is there any energy anyway?
And, again, you're begging the question. Why presume there's a justification? Why presume 'why' has any meaning. What are the other options? What is the underlying nature that means an absence of the capacity for energy is a viable concept.
O.
