[Bork]

Ontologically simpler therefore massive favorite to be true is not an accurate application of Ockham's Razor. If it was then one wonder's why Ockham or anyone would believe that. Ockham's Razor just states we ought not multiply entities in our ontology unnecesarily. This is generally good advice, but doesn't really apply here as far as I can see.

Ockham's razor can defeat attempts to use the existence of religions as evidence for God's existence though. This is assuming the existence of religions can be explained just as well without invoking God as the possible explanations involving God. This might lead one to suspending judgement, how do you see Ockham's razor being used to destroy the case for God?