There are a variety of problems with why “God did it’ is actually discounted by Occam’s razor. The issue here is somewhat subtle, but the basic idea is that “God did it” only seems like a simple hypothesis because of artifacts of human language. Any notion of “God” as usually used as an explanatory entity is actually an extremely complicated idea. Natural language doesn’t reflect how complicated or simple something actually is. For example we have single words for “love” and “anger” and other emotional states that seem intuitively simple but actually are extremely complicated with a variety of predictions associated with them. It is only because of human intuition that such things seem simple. More careful formulations of Occam’s razor such as using a Solomonoff prior will result in that hypothesis being registered as extremely complicated. (And in fact similar remarks apply to many versions of the “Matrix hypothesis”.)
There are a variety of problems with why “God did it’ is actually discounted by Occam’s razor. The issue here is somewhat subtle, but the basic idea is that “God did it” only seems like a simple hypothesis because of artifacts of human language. Any notion of “God” as usually used as an explanatory entity is actually an extremely complicated idea. Natural language doesn’t reflect how complicated or simple something actually is. For example we have single words for “love” and “anger” and other emotional states that seem intuitively simple but actually are extremely complicated with a variety of predictions associated with them. It is only because of human intuition that such things seem simple. More careful formulations of Occam’s razor such as using a Solomonoff prior will result in that hypothesis being registered as extremely complicated. (And in fact similar remarks apply to many versions of the “Matrix hypothesis”.)