On the creation of a complex world out of infinite options

Isn't this equivalent in the eyes of the Rabbi, intuitively or by virtue of other evidence in favor of belief in God?
At the level of logical deduction, there are two possibilities for explaining the existence of a complex world, and as long as there is no contradiction or evidence for one of them, they are equal. No?

Absolutely not. Otherwise, the whole principle of Occam's razor falls apart. To rule out the possibility that there is a contradiction, you don't need the principle of the razor.
In my opinion, it's not the same thing at all. Assuming that there is one entity that created the world is the obvious solution. Creating countless universes that no one has seen for no reason, and especially in one of them there could also be an entity like God, and then you haven't gained anything at all.
I explained all this in my book God Plays Dice, in the article and in the first post.

One should not multiply entities more than necessary.
But an entity that is far from mind and reality, completely abstract, is further away than countless universes.
The razor principle also says not to multiply an abstract entity when it is possible to multiply familiar creatures.

Assaf, this is not your question,
You did not claim that there are infinite universes, but rather you said that as long as there is a contingent reality, there must be some universe, and this is one of the infinite options that is not truly realized.
And on that you ask whether God's option is less likely.
What does the Rabbi think?

Noor, what is far-fetched? The fact that you haven't seen it doesn't mean anything. You're not supposed to see it. But you are supposed to see these universes.
And in general, these universes are not familiar beings. On the contrary, they are unfamiliar beings, at least some of which were supposed to be familiar, and yet we haven't seen anything from them all. It's really implausible.

I think that the option of God is more plausible. I explained this in all the above sources. In particular, that our world is a collection of things created by something. And the fact that a contingent reality exists itself requires an explanation. Why would it exist? Who created it?

Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I haven't seen the Corona virus either, and it exists.
When I come to discuss whether there is a God or many universes that are constantly being created - in my opinion, God is further away!

The option of God is more reasonable in combination[!] with the cosmological view, I definitely think that the physico-theological view alone does not stand, but rather as a strong addition.

I already wrote that if in your opinion it is better, then for you there is no evidence. In my opinion it is actually much, much better, and therefore there is evidence. That's all. What's the point of all this chatter?! Everything has already been explained in the above sources.

And what does it have to do with the fact that I didn't see is not evidence. Who here talked about evidence of what I didn't see? We're talking about comparing what's more likely: assuming the existence of billions of objects and universes of different types that no one has seen, or assuming the existence of one object that we don't see but aren't supposed to see either. I think we've exhausted it.

If we follow reason, then:
The idea of creating a world out of nothing contains a logical contradiction. After all, it is a matter of one thing and its opposite.
It is more logically convenient to say that the universe is all that exists.
It only needs to be noted that the universe is not what we see. But. everything that can be.
In other words, the universe contains all of existence.