Some naturalists argue that the simplicity of the naturalist claim makes it more plausible than that of the theist claim. The naturalist claim is making a uniform claim about the universe, saying that everything in the natural world is created of the same material and that there is no supernatural being that is external to this world that could have created it. On the other hand, theism is making the claim that there is both the natural world and a supernatural being that created it, which is not uniform. They assert that a supernatural being exists outside of this world of nature, which is inconsistent, increasing the likelihood that their claim is untrue. The argument goes as follows:
1. Uniformity makes a hypothesis more likely to be true.
2. Naturalism is more uniform than theism.
3. Naturalism is more likely to be true.
However, it is objectionable that naturalism is more uniform (or simple) than theism. The naturalist argues that theism does not require uniformity in the world while naturalism does. While the naturalist claims that the things that exist in the natural world are consistent, they fail to acknowledge the inconsistency with the first cause of the universe. It is a natural law that every cause has an effect, so the naturalist must affirm that. Yet, they fail to provide a theory that is consistent with the natural law for how the world was initially created. The initial cause, according to theists, is God. However, naturalists are only able to hypothesize an endless regress, self-cause, or an uncaused first, etc, with no real theory that supports their claim. If they were to choose a claim, it would seem that they would run into a contradiction with their hypothesis, or they would not be able to stay uniform in it. For example, if a naturalist were to claim that the big bang was the first cause, it would seem that they would still need to explain its origins. And to do so, would be to say that it was self-causing, eternally regressing, or had no cause. And all those options are either contradictory to the naturalist hypothesis, or they are impossible to claim in uniformity with the natural world. So, it seems that to avoid contradiction, they would have to make a non-uniform claim that would then put them in the same position that they put theism in. Making the claims comparable in uniformity.