considerations of the atheistic propositions of richard dawkins

The scientist Richard Dawkins has been claiming that his atheistic explanation for the universe is more likely to be true because it is simpler than any alternative explanation claiming God created the universe.
I want to try to answer his assertion that a universe creating itself by accident is a simpler concept than God creating the universe on purpose.
I am quibbling solely with his ascription of the word simplicity to his own atheistic theory.
In making his appeal to simplicity, Mr Dawkins is referencing the principle known as Occam's Razor.
The principle is a suggestion that in the realm of putative explanations of any mode of reality, the simplest explanation will often be the best.
It is a counsel to seek simplicity.
We might otherwise state it that in postulating explanations we should not multiply mysteries unnecessarily.
Occam's Razor was devised by a Catholic monk known as William of Ockam who lived in the fourteenth century..
His insight is not a law.
It's more a perspective.
A useful metalogical reminder for those investigating the nature of reality.
Where possible keep it simple.
I would state it: Don't unnecessarily multiply mysteries to make reality fit your theory.
Perhaps we might best understand it as an aspiration towards a methodology of the scientific method, an intellectual weather eye, for those engaged in the search for knowledge.
A timely suggestion coming down through centuries for all those seeking to explain what is.
Occam's Razor is not exhaustive.
If every complex scientific discovery was thrown away because it wasn't simple enough, we would lose a lot of what Mr Dawkins holds dear, some of it even possibly true.
Occam's Razor is just a wise way of trying to figure out the nature of things.
Misapplied, we would figure out nothing with it, including Deoxyribonucleic acid, background radiation as a key to human conceptions of the observable age of the universe, the alluring effect of Heidi Flurgendorf playing with her hair, and on and on.
Because these theories are all complex at every level of their iteration.
So Occam's Razor, like any truth, can be nonsense if misapplied.
I am suggesting that Mr Dawkins has misapplied Occam's Razor in claiming that his notion of a universe that caused itself and has essentially always existed without cause in some form, either as a singularity, or an energy, or something else, is a simpler explanation than the explanation positing an eternally existing God who created the universe and us on purpose.
I do not see that Mr Dawkins' proposed explanations of the universe are in any way simple or indeed simpler in the logical positive sense than the reality of God.
We're both certainly making an act of faith.
Mr Dawkins thinks limitlessly powerful energies have always existed and can make a universe.
I think a limitlessly powerful energy has always existed and made the universe and knew precisely what it was doing.
Which viewpoint, when it comes down to it, is simpler?
Believing Christians and Mr Dawkins are both claiming that a mighty powerful energy that makes a universe and human beings has always existed in some form.
Mr Dawkins says it does things by accident.
I have never seen any direct evidence produced by Mr Dawkins or anyone else, to demonstrate that the energy which made the universe hadn't a clue what it was doing.
The believing Christian says it knows exactly what it is doing and is an eternally existing person.
Can we really accept the assertion that Mr Dawkins explanation is simpler?
Mr Dawkins has lately been reduced to throwing his hat in the ring with those rather desperate atheists who claim there are limitless numbers of causeless universes in which anything that can happen does happen.
This particularly lurid fantasy was contrived as an answer to the increasingly prevalent scientific assertion that there isn't enough time in recorded history for evolution to take place.
I am no fan of the astronomer Fred Hoyle but he put it most succinctly when he said: "The chances of life beginning spontaneously by chance are the same as that of a hurricane hitting a junkyard and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet."
The teensy problem with Darwinian evolution adverted to by Mr Hoyle, is that it didn't happen and it couldn't have happened.
So why is Richard Dawkins insisting that it did happen?
Atheistic scientists responded to the growing scientific refutation of Evolutionary Darwinism, with their invention of the above mentioned postulation of limitlesss numbers of alternative unobservable universes perpetually creating and uncreating themselves on other planes of reality, again and always, for no reason. This was meant to solve the atheists' problem that with the timeline in one universe, Darwinian evolution is now being deemed impossible by an increasing number of their fellow scientists.
Talk about multiplying mysteries to make reality fit your theory!
An infinite number of alternative universes.
Created at a stroke.
By atheistic scientists themselves.
Just to justify Darwinism.
And they think God can't make one!
The theory of the multiverse, if we credit it with the name theory, is a massive multiplication of mysteries, a pseudo scientific hocus pocus, a shameless superstition, absolutely flying in the face of the methodological perspective known as Occam's Razor.
It is a desperate gambit by Mr Dawkins and his friends to avoid a rather obvious, inherently logical and sublimely simple conception of reality which for emotional rather than scientific reasons, they have spent a life time opposing.
God made the world.
I think William of Ockham might have a wry chuckle at seeing his great Principle coopted by Mr Dawkins as an emblem of simplicity in advocating the Benny Hill style hokum of the Multiverse over the existence of the one true, eternal, ever loving, ever living, creator God.