Is this not equivalent in the Rabbi’s view intuitively, or because of additional proofs in favor of belief in God?
On the level of logical inference, there are two possible explanations for the existence of a complex world, and as long as there is no refutation or proof for either of them, they are equal. No?

Absolutely not. Otherwise the whole principle of Occam’s razor collapses. To reject a possibility for which there is a refutation, you don’t need the razor principle.
In my view this is really not the same thing. To assume that there is one entity that created the world is the natural solution. To manufacture countless universes that nobody has seen, for no reason—and especially since in one of them there could also be an entity like God, in which case you haven’t gained anything at all.
I explained all this in my book God Plays Dice, in the article, and in The First Existent.

One should not multiply entities beyond necessity.
But an entity that is far removed from reason and reality, completely abstract, is surely farther removed than countless universes.
The razor principle also says not to multiply an abstract entity when you can multiply familiar beings instead.

Asaf, that isn’t your question,
you didn’t claim that infinitely many universes exist. Rather, you said that insofar as a contingent reality exists, there must in any case be some universe, and that’s it—one out of the infinitely many options that were not actually realized.
And about that you’re asking whether the God option is less probable.
What does the Rabbi think?

Nur, what is “far removed from reason”? The fact that you haven’t seen it says nothing. You’re not supposed to see it. But those universes—you are supposed to see them.
And in general, those universes are not familiar beings. On the contrary, they are unfamiliar beings, at least some of which should have been familiar, and yet we haven’t seen anything of any of them. That is really highly improbable.

I think the God option is more probable. I explained this in all the above sources. Especially since our world is a collection of things that were created by something. And the very fact that a contingent reality exists itself requires an explanation. Why should it exist? Who created it?

The fact that I haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I haven’t seen the coronavirus either, and it exists.
When I come to discuss whether God exists or whether many universes are constantly being created—from my point of view, God is more far-fetched!

The God option is more probable in combination with the cosmological proof[!]. I definitely think the physico-theological proof by itself doesn’t stand, but it is a strong supplement.

I’ve already written that if in your eyes that is preferable, then for you there is no proof. In my eyes דווקא this is vastly preferable, and therefore there is a proof. That’s all. What’s the point of all this hair-splitting?! Everything has already been explained in the above sources.

And what does this have to do with the issue that not having seen something is not proof? Who here was talking about proofs from the fact that I haven’t seen it? We are talking about a comparison of what is more probable: to assume the existence of billions of objects and universes of different kinds that nobody has seen, or to assume the existence of one object that is unseen but also not supposed to be seen. It seems to me we’ve exhausted this.

If we’re already going by reason, then:
The idea of creating a world out of nothing contains a logical contradiction within it, since it is a matter of a thing and its opposite.
It is logically more comfortable to say that the universe is all that exists.
It just needs to be noted that the universe is not what we see, but rather everything that can be.
That is, the universe contains all of existence.