We exist in the mind of God. That is the simplest explanation of our experience.
LOL
Simpler: We exist in the mind.
Think about it. We do not have to extend beyond the idea of thought in order to explain reality.
…and reality extends beyond my mind…and yours.
What about you and God and everything are all just in my mind, just as simple. Also what if we exist in Odin’s mind, or Vishnu or the 24th reincarnation of the Siddartha Guatma?
And anyway as if Occam’s razor proves anything.
The problem with simplicity also is that its very easy to make a case that something is simpler, but not everyone will agree to it, for example the universe without God is simpler than with. Would you agree therefore that God does not exist?
Then why extent it to god?
=D>
The basic principle I work from is that thought definitely exists, therefore if we can see how reality is constructed from thought alone we do not have to extend into make believe stuff like mind independence . Reality is not dependent upon my mind (the only one that exists according to solipsism ) because there are good reasons for me to suppose much of reality is beyond my control.
So, we should dismiss make believe stuff like mind independence but accept god?
But we might just have to in order to experience it. Explanation is already a matter of thought, so, ya. But peraps reality is simpler still, i.e. beyond the idea of thought…
The god idea is simpler that the mind independence idea.
De-construct as much as you like, I believe in thought…like all sane people.
Not if it presupposes a Persona it isn’t.
…well, insane people “believe in thought” too, you know. 
God would wanna sodomize you for making this thread
How does that work?
So, there is God, he/she/it has a mind, he/she/it thinks of us, and of the whole universe, he/she/it thinks about the way it works, he/she/it designs physics, biology, psychology… history, and he/she/it thinks also that we are self-aware ideas… ?
Well I can’t prove that would be impossible. (You might enjoy reading Berkeley).
Whether this is really the simplest explanation, I have doubts.
Btw, Occam’s razor is not that the simplest idea is the true one. Occam’s razor says that one has to seek the simplest explanation. Period.
Now, would your idea be able to give any account about the way anything works? Because God thinks that way? (It sounds like the virtus dormitiva argument). Can your theory predict anything? On which condition could your theory be tested? On which condition could one say whether is true or false?
I wish God had a better mind.
I don’t think occams’ razor is properly understood by many, including mr OP.
It doesn’t mean “the explanation that takes the least words,” so you might wanna rethink your logic here.
True, FJ.
Anyway, I’d submit that something like “it is what it is” is far simpler than “we exist in the mind of God”.
Occam’s Razor states: “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” Modern iterations of the idea include Poppers definition which states: “the simplest adequate explanation is the best.” That so, the question is whether “God” is an adequate explanation for existence - or an entity multiplied beyond necessity.