It was utilized in the same political and philosophical arguments that are not presented by scientism which actually weakens the claims being made rather than supports them. However, compare the omnipotent being, (which is not necessarily a persona of any kind) with the details that support the theory of the Big Bang.
Without supporting either contention, I can say that Occam's Razor is useful just as is the techniques of deduction and logic of Sherlock Holmes and in various contexts, but it is not some bulletproof assertion of actual fact, especially today.
It is kind of a good thing that those who represent opposing political/philosophical views to atheism and anti-theism are not usually up-to-date or they could call out some of the errors being used to refute them.
How simple do you think the explanation of the Big Bang is? I mean what do you know about it and what was prior to the initial process? Wouldn't that be something fundamental? Do you understand the causes and conditions prior to said event and what they would be? That seems to be relevant here, since the basis of a proposition should have some support, to be fair.
= new reply since forum marked as read