Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

Before I begin allow me to clarify two things:The theory of God as indicated by the resolution is simply a belief regarding the existence of God along with whatever justification is presented in support of that belief.Con uses an example of someone attempting to use Occam's Razor to conclude that God does not exist. That conclusion however is not the resolution and therefore not my burden to support. My burden is to show how Occam's razor does in fact apply to the theory of God as I just described.I assume Con does not take issue with any of the above, so let's begin.Occam's RazorWhen engaging in intellectual discussion Occam's razor is often touted as a prescriptive method of reaching a valid conclusion, however I'd argue that it is actually descriptive. Very few people (aside from philosophy buffs) actually know what Occam's Razor is or have ever heard of it, yet nearly everyone uses it in every endeavor of their lives. If someone parks their car in a parking lot and they return to find their window broken and a baseball in the seat next to it, any reasonable person would assume that the baseball flew through the window. What would not be reasonable is to assume that someone broke the window with a hammer to search for loose change, then decided afterward to leave a baseball in the seat as a present.But why is that not the most reasonable conclusion? Because it violates Occam's Razor. To assume that the baseball broke the window explains all of the observables and paints a complete picture of what happened. The latter theory described makes many assumptions that are not supported. When determining the truth of something, Occam's Razor is essentially the use of reason. Earlier today I saw a photograph taken in 1941 alleged to have captured an image of a time traveler (http://www.retronaut.com...). The man in question in this photograph appears extremely modern amongst everyone else at that time and stands out in the picture as a result. It is quite interesting, and even compelling. However, after careful scrutiny one can discover that sunglasses he is wearing may not have been in style till years later but were available 20 years prior to the time of the photograph, and the shirt that was said to have been a t-shirt with a logo on it (not available at that time) actually matches a sweater with a sewn-on emblem readily available at the time. While no one can prove that the person is not a time traveler, the very fact that there are much simpler explanations then the original allegation easily allows us to dismiss that he was a time traveler as unreasonable. The reason we are able to dismiss this is because of that same process we call Occam's Razor.Applying Occam's RazorCon in this debate is defending the notion that this principle does not apply to the theory of God, however as I have demonstrated it applies to everything. And the reason it applies to everything is because it is a part of how we reason, not some prescribed method which we can pick or choose when to use it. For Con to uphold his position he must either demonstrate that Occam's Razor is not a valid process of reasoning, or he must explain to us why the theory of God gets special treatment, i.e.: special pleading. I see no other options for Con, but maybe he does. Let's find out...