Because the number of postulates required for any given point is entirely subjective

For example, regarding God:

A christian believer would have a single Postulate regarding Him: God exists. Assuming this statement is true, all other things in his belief system thus derive from it.

Meanwhile, an atheist would require multiple postulates to assume the existence of God: he'd need to postulate a mechanism for how God came into existence, he'd need to postulate a mechanism for how God created all things, he'd need to postulate a mechanism for why God doesn't do this and why God did that and how God is a perfect being with an imperfect universe and what is the meaning of free will if we're all just puppets of God and all those other conundrums which come into question once we assume the existence of God is real: because for an atheist, without a proper answer to all those questions, assuming God exists would be meaningless and illogical. However, this is not true for a Christian.

Perhaps my explanation is insufficient regarding the logic at hand, but I feel that Occam's razor has very limited use.

Regarding your other points:

>This explanation fails to sufficiently explain available data. For example, synchrotron radiation forming a beam is a relativistic effect you see in practive.

Actually, it does. It simply says that God, as an all-powerful, ever-present being, either creates or guides the mechanisms which cause these physic-based effects. Of course, its a shitty explanation, but these sorts of explanations are the whole founding principle of organized religion.

Furthermore, while I do agree that your argument for monetary incentives explain vaccination problems in a much more coherent and logical way than government conspiracy, I believe that the way you explained it required almost as many postulates as a government conspiracy theory :p