Perhaps so. But if you want to get all technical and mathematical, then you also have to acknowledge that asserting the existence of God makes a mathematically poorer hypothesis than not. Occam's Razor and all that, since we are dragging algorithmic information theory into the discussion.
If we are being strictly rigorous in a mathematical sense, both sets of hypotheses (those that assert the existence of God and those that do not) are perfectly valid. However, by the same mathematics, the set of hypotheses that assert the existence of God are decidedly inferior in terms of the probability of being correct.
If you are a betting man, the place you put your money is obvious. Believing a hypothesis that asserts the existence of God is not necessarily irrational, but it most certainly is not the hypothesis most likely to be correct. Which is fine; I do not care what people believe as long as they recognize the limitations of their beliefs and the assertions they can make about said beliefs.
OK, according to Occam's Razor, who is the "prime mover". Secondly, if you are trying to prove the non-existance of God, why would you use Occam's Razor which gets its name from a 13th century Franciscan Monk?
Your points are well made, however, there is no need for a believer to substantiate his doctrine with materialistic theory.
Not so however with the atheist - who as a metaphysical naturalist has put materialism at the center of his disbelief - otherwise his disbelief is actually a belief in rebellion to diety and in favor of self. That was my point.
In sum, there is not a scientific materialism "bar" for belief but there is for disbelief.
How?
But this statement is absurd, tort!!! The hypotheses we humans construct re: the reality or the unreality of God can never be the measure or test of God. His reality does not depend in any way on human will or desire to prove or disprove His "existence." In other words, the ancient insight continues to be valid (and perennially so, it seems to me): Man is not the measure.