Theories and hypotheses are not the same kind of things.
My general view of theories (in the sense of “scientific theories”) is that they are neither true nor false. There are no criteria by which we could judge the truth of a theory. Rather, we accept a theory on pragmatic grounds – how well it works.
Roughly, we attempt to determine whether hypotheses are true or false. But we cannot do that for theories. We can only attempt to see how well a theory works. The way that we judge theories is different from the way that we judge hypotheses.
Perhaps I am looking at “God exists” as a proposed theory, rather than as an hypothesis. I had not previously thought of it that way.
But that word “favors” is too vague.
I agree with your cake example.
I have never been able to make sense of “naturalism is true”.
If I take naturalism to be a stance that we adopt, I can make sense of that. But I don’t know what it would mean to say that it is true.
If God created nature, as many theists presume, then why would naturalism be opposed to theism?
I’m having trouble making sense of that, too. If consciousness is the starting point, that would seem to suggest that God is created by human thought. And that should count as against theism.
Obviously, we have very different ways of looking at this.