“God did it” is certainly simpler to say than “the universe emerged from quantum fluctuations in space-time”. Who’s right?

But there’s a problem: We just asserted that A is simpler than B in both cases. It’s obvious what simple means. Richard Swinburne, deployed Occam’s razor when he suggested that God is the simplest explanation for the universe, because God is a single thing.

These aren't full correct. The Copenhagen interpretation might be right despite being more complex. God might exist; if the evidence shows that intelligent creation is more likely than the Big Bang, then it doesn’t matter how simple the theories are. But it means that you need more evidence for them

According to minimum message-length Occam’s razor, a cosmos consisting of infinite universes can be ‘simpler’ than one that contains just one.

But the program you’d need to create millions of universes would same as a program needed to create one universe – just have an extra line in it which says “do that again”, essentially – while a program that had to keep track of what every human in the world was looking at would be much more complex

The alternative, the “Copenhagen” interpretation, which says that quantum events aren’t resolved until they are observed, needs only one universe, and so sounds simpler.

The “many worlds” interpretation of quantum theory, which says that every fraction of a second the universe splits into billions of parallel universes, sounds complex.