The Problem with the Argument of Simplicity-Existence

This argument has many a time been used to prove that God necessarily created the universe. Yet, it shall be shown that this argument is contradictory, and further reveals greater irony to the proof for the Creator. The argument is as follows:

It is simple for the non-existence of something and of nothingness itself then for the existence of something and of nothingness itself.
The simpler is always more likely to be true.
Therefore, it is more likely for there to be the non-existence of something and of nothingness itself then for the existence of something and of nothingness itself.
Yet, this begs the question of why something and nothingness exist at all.
There must exist a creator in order for existence, and this is what we know to be God.

It is obvious that the two statements that are being compared to each other, “…for the non-existence of something and of nothingness itself…” and “…the existence of something and of nothingness itself…”, are inherently contradictory – and thus serves no purpose to the argument. The first asserts for the non-existence of something and the existence of something – and this goes the same for the second one. It is as if to say that ‘it is simpler for the existence and non-existence of something then for the existence and non-existence of something’. This argument does not make any sense.

Yet, it is also possible to adapt the rather abstract version of the argument and ignore the plain former objection to the argument itself. Yet, while it still remains true that the simpler is more likely to be truer, my objection thus stays on a higher order than to the abstraction.

The argument then comes to a proof-by-contradiction through interpretation. That is, it proves, if God exists at all, that God did not create reality, but rather either played no role in it or simply designed it. And this be the highest of irony contained within this argument!