Suppose I win the lottery and I pray to God before it. I now tell others that God helped me. Others, skeptics, respond that it makes no sense as to why God only helped me but not others. I now construct a hypothesis of God where I simply define God to be an All Powerful Being who only intervenes during my lottery win. This in my head addresses the skeptics’ concerns.
Now, the chance of me winning the lottery may be very low. However, the chance of this God helping me win the lottery is 1. In this purely probabilistic sense, when it comes to likelihoods, the God explanation seems to do better.
And yet, something about the fact that this God explanation does not explain, account for, or has nothing to say for all the other facts about the world seems to discredit it. The alternative explanation, one being of no gods or naturalism, may explain this event as an unlikely occurrence, but may explain all other facts about the universe in more detail compared to my god hypothesis. As such, it still may be reasonable to prefer naturalism over the specific God hypothesis.
What is this concept called? Explanatory power? Explanatory scope? Should this be relevant at all into determining the truth of a hypothesis?