Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons...
No, we don't observe photons with our eyes, we observe light.
Your hypothesis is testable and has been found to be wrong. Electrons too, both are testable hypothesis. (Assuming, of course, science. Don't come back and point your finger at this when I mention assumptions later.)
As for the rest of your post, it entirely misses the point that there is absolutely nothing prohibiting God to exist outside the Universe, and thus a Universe without a creator is not necessarily simpler than one with a creator, as the one with a creator does not need that creator to exist within itself and be subject to its rules
, thus questions are not raised by default.
You're overlooking my point. We hypothesize
that light exists in tiny packets called photons. Lets say you have a sealed can, and when you shake it you hear what sounds like a metallic object rattling around. You hypothesize that there is some metallic object inside. After opening it, you find that it is actually an elaborate set of electric hammers that perfectly mimic the sounds of a metallic object rattling inside the can. Well, hell, your metallic object theory was good enough to make predictions about what kinds of sounds it makes, so it was a good enough theory.
Furthermore, saying that assuming no God exists is simpler and prudent for practical purposes is idiotic, as it assumes that said God does not interact with the Universe. For one, assuming that there is an afterlife and you need to believe in said God to get into Heaven, you have hurt yourself quite a bit. Furthermore, God could say one day "Hey, I'm sick of that guy ignoring me. Here's a car accident but you're still alive."
Two words: Pascal's Wager.
That's your argument here, and it's filled with more holes than a Prohibition mob informant.
Note that this does not mean that one should believe that there is no God by default, it means that the possibility should not be baselessly cast aside due to one's conception of everything being subject to his perception. Bad things could happen if you assume that there is a God rather than not if there is no God, or if you choose to believe in the wrong one. There is no scientific proof that God does or does not exist. There is no logical deduction to prove it one way or the other, as any such deduction subjects the concept of God (who, by definition, is far, far greater than you) to your logic. That's why it's called faith.
That is precisely why we base how we live our everyday lives and what decisions we make not on what could be, but on what we observe. Did you know, for example, that there is a dragon behind you, right now? Don't bother to look, he's invisible, completely silent, and he allows matter and energy to pass through him at will; entirely undetectable by any means(in fact, this undetectability only proves his power over the universe). He follows you everywhere you go, judging you. If you don't do what the dragon wants, he might roast you with his flames and gobble you up, except that he's never done this even though you've done many, many, many things of which he doesn't approve. Still, he may change his mind at any moment and roast you. Is it not then foolish to act as if he doesn't exist?
In short, anybody who says that they have a concrete way to prove something about God is wacko. At some point there is a fundamental assumption being made. Believe what you will, just don't try to force me to believe it using logic or something else. (Yes, this is a different view on the religion thing than I've taken in the past, but I think that this may well be here to stay. Also, don't bother pointing out the irony that this falls under the whole "everything has a fundamental assumption of your logic being right." Don't bother pointing that out to me to try to prove to me that I am wrong. And yes, I realize that you will most likely maintain your differing view. I don't care. This post is to make clear what I think on the subject and why I find Occam's Razor to be crap, as you seem to have missed my point before.)
First of all, acknowledging that your position is hypocritical, but then saying that you don't care anyway doesn't do anything positive. At all. It does not somehow validate your point; if anything, it shows that you don't even think your own argument holds
much water. Believing something that goes against your arguments isn't noble, it's just silly.
Second, you still hold the "nothing you ever say or show me will convince me I'm wrong, ever" position, which is remarkably close-minded. Before you try and pin the same title on me, remember that, as I've said before, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm wrong, when I actually see plausible evidence against me. No, arguments that you not only throw out on their own and never bother defend, but have been shown time and time again to be patently false will not suffice. Integrity and skepticism are not the same thing as close-mindedness.
I don't remember disputing electrons, I remember likening the relationship between the sensation of electricity and electrons with the sensation of light and photons. Again, light is an observable thing, photons are one hypothesis as to of what light is composed. Likewise, there are forces in the universe that can't be attributed to any directly observable source. Dark matter and energy are a hypothetical filler explanation for what causes them.