You deleted the other comment I was trying to respond to, but I'm interested in a response to the idea that an "object" that meets all the requirements you've given could be simpler than God, and therefore more likely by Occam priors.
Maybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.
Yes? But I assume you aren't arguing for God-as-in-any-object-or-idea-that-meets-a-list-of-criteria, I assume you're arguing for God. God that's described in any book I've read appears to have a lot of complexity, and I don't think it's likely that nothing else that would meet the criteria would be simpler.
Ah, great question. OK, if there is a "God" explanation for creation and its a logically sound argument, then how do we know who or what this God is? Many religions claim to know, but how we can differentiate them and use logic, reason, science, etc to find this one true God. Is that the question you're after?
Not exactly, my argument there was that there would be a huge number of individually more likely (due to being simpler) candidate objects for your criteria, that in combination entirely swamp every conception of God that has ever been written down in any book anywhere.