Ok. So, for example, to explain the existence of a tree, it makes more sense to just posit the tree, than to also posit a flying spaghetti monster. or god.
A persona is necessary for thought. My evidence is that I have thoughts and I have a personality (sort of 
) …one goes with the other.
Your description of the idea is correct.
It is clearly the simplest explanation to believe that only thought exists . Thoughts require a being to produce them, therefore God is the simplest explanation of this existence.
This idea would certainly explain the “designedness” of this existence and how it came into being.
The simplest explanation that makes the most sense.
“It is what it is” does not explain how it came about. I do not need to explain how God is (or came about) because we do not need to fully explain an explanation.
Perhaps you’ve been sent by God to test us. It’s the simplest explanation that makes sense to me.
Let’s suppose the bold is true.
What you are actually speaking of is perception, specifically, not thought in general. If you see a tree, you don’t necessarily have other thoughts about the tree; you see the tree. So let’s grant that there is the tree, and there is perception of the tree.
Well… wait… that covers it. You don’t need anything else. You have the tree. You have perception of the tree. The tree caused the perception. Nothing else is needed. No God.
This explanation is far simpler than positing God, the tree, and the perception of all in the mind of God.
If you believe in God, that the universe is designed and, probably, that it has a purpose, that’s your call and I won’t dwell on that.
Only, IMO, it has nothing to do with Occam’s razor and it does not prove anything.
Occam’s razor, i.e. the Principle of Economy in science, normally deals with theories that cast links and relations on sets of experimental data. You are not doing this, you refer to making sense, your sense I guess… and, with the due respect, that would not be an acceptable criterion for proving anything, notably amongst philosophers.
Nevertheless, whatever I say would not prove that you are wrong.
Still, positing (intelligent) design (and an absolute perspective on human experience), so that one would have to acknowledge the existence of God, it’s simply preaching to the converted, it’s not an argument.
Well if He did He didn’t let me in on it. 
An explanation is based on a question, the question here being about the nature of reality and our simplest explanation of it given what we almost certainly know…ie, thought exists.
My perception of the tree in no way encompasses the whole of what the tree is. For instance, there are endless angles from which to view the tree, there is no way I can ever see all of them.In other words, the tree doesn’t just exist as my perception of it.It is therefore obvious that the tree exists beyond my thoughts.
My basic theory is dead simple…there are thoughts produced by thinkers. If the world exists as thought (and we have no reason to believe otherwise) then God exists.
I’ll also mention that I’m not a pantheist, this world is not necessarily the limit of God.
There are 2 clear choices that I can conceive of, either this world exists as thought alone, or it exists as mind independent material that has produced thought by chance alone. I know which is the simpler explanation (given both are possible).
I assume you accept that thought exists?
I assume you’re lying. It’s simple, and makes sense. 
This in no way follows. You need at least one more proposition in here if you’re going to try to make some kind of argument. “God exists” does not follow from “The world exists as thought.”
Actually, Chester, thought and objective reality can exist simultaneously. Further, how did God come about, just popping into existence all ghetto blastin’ with his omnipotent, omniscient self (for this is obviously part of the explaination: the origin of God and his magical powers)? That is a simpler explanation than we happened to evolve to our current state after 4.5 billion years? It is simpler that he popped into existence, created earth and man all of 6015 years or so ago (if you’re an Ussher Date kind of guy), threw in some fossils and carbon decay to completely mind fuck our scientists (which he of course knew would come and that they would figure out how to determine the age of stuff in relation to the rate of carbon decay, crack the human genome and have Anaximander help Darwin along, and Hubble, Einstein, et cetera), create genetic data and the stars, black holes, astronomy in general erosion and right about now your argument is so far from Occam’s Razor that I feel like making a harsh comment which I will, however, refrain from doing.
Makes sense doesn’t it? ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
And really, you’re a long way off from proving “the world exists as thought.” That doesn’t follow either from, “There is thought of a world.” That means that the world is an object of thought. That doesn’t mean that the world is nothing but thought.
A persona is necessary for relating to an other. It might just as well be said that a brain is necessary for thought, but surely you don’t mean to say God has a brain, too?
If we are other than God, such that God has a persona, then we are apart from God, and therefore not in God (assuming God’s mind is “in” God, too) Or does God create a persona for our benefit so we may believe we have something to relate to, when in fact we really don’t?
With hartfelt sympathy, it’s a damp squib, it does not fly.
An hypothesis is just that, an hypothesis, it is not reality. It is not because it “makes sense” that it becomes true, there are countless examples in history of theories that made sense and that eventually turned out as false.
So much because you wanted to present your theory in scientific paraphernalia, or sort of, referring to Occam’s Razor. Besides, sticking to science, your theory is outside any scope of testing, it makes no sense discussing it.
Philosophically, what you qualify as two clear distinct choices encompasses the whole history of philosophy. It is not discrete, it’s very dense, there are countless positions between the pure idealism and the pure materialism you depict. If thoughts exist (let’s assume that they do, though that would deserve some deepening that I skip) that would provide no cogency for your theory. The «mind independent material that has produced thought by chance alone» view is a very personal one, there are many competing doctrines.
But let’s get more to the point.
If only thoughts exist, how come you posit that thoughts are produced by some being? It must be a thought procing thoughts…
Where does this first thought come from? Always been there, I guess… Anyway, a thought of first order, producing thoughts of second order, who can also produce thoughts, and so on? What kind of reality our thoughts have? Same as the thoughts we supposedly are or different? Lesser? But if they are all thoughts, aren’t they the same? And do we stop there, or our thoughts may produce their own thoughts too? In case, why not? Is there a regressus ad infinitum going on here, by chance?
Then, if thought it’s the only thing out there, what’s the point of qualifying it as thought? What’s the point of making a distinction in a universe where everything is exactly the same thing? How would you distinguish the thought of the tree you see - and “it’s there” - from illusion? Illusions must be thoughts nevertheless, and therefore illusions are real, else you are no longer consistent. And in that respect, what is “real”, after all? Or nothing is real? Then what does it mean that we exist?
I stop here, it was just a game. Probably it does not really portray your theory.
There can be a large spectrum of metaphysics that can be adapted to what you want to say, Neoplatonism, some forms of idealism… you name it.
Then, why are you doing all this? Why not presenting this as «the metaphysics such and such explains our existence» (which translates “the purpose of our existence”)?
And maybe you should, because the concepts of thought and existence become very blurred in you theory, it would delight amateur analytic philosopher aiming at defusing philosophical problems defining them as confusion.
You say that you are not a pantheist, which is that you maintaint that this universe of thoughts would not delimit God. And, indeed, it must be so if you want to avoid some of the problems above. It is a necessity if you look for the originator of thoughts. And I guess that this is all that matters to you…
It seems to me that you tip the world upside down to assert that God exists more than us. You apparently target our existence, while you focus on the existence of God. And that’s the urge beneath, where you should have started.
Only that… there’s no proof. Sorry. (No hard feelings though, really).
Occam’s razor is not a law of nature anyway, if it was then most modern science would of been discarded as being unnecessarily complex, hell we’d probably still be living in pre industrial civilisations banging on about the 4 elements.
True. I guess it could be argued that it is a good logical precept for a priori reasoning, but I don’t necessarily believe that is true.