What makes people irrational thinkers?

[GrandizerII]

I’m curious; why do you believe that the question of the necessity or contingency of physical  reality is a purely philosophical one that science cannot have anything to say about?

How would science go about establishing that physical reality is necessary or contingent? Not saying it's not possible, but it seems like the best we can do is to rely on intuition as to what would do for something to be metaphysically necessary or contingent.

A physical reality comprising of only one universe doesn't feel like a necessary reality because you can reasonably ask yourself the question "why this universe rather than an alternate universe?" or "why one seemingly arbitrary universe instead of multiple universes?" This is the case even under theism. If God is the reason for this one particular physical reality, why this rather than an alternate?*

It seems like the most intuitive way to argue for a metaphysically necessary physical reality is if you postulate that it comprises a network of all metaphysically possible universes or something like that. Then the question of "why this rather than that" starts to feel forced and less reasonable to ask.

This is of course just speculation on my part. Ultimately, reality need not give two shits about my or anyone else's intuitions. Physical reality may simply be a brute fact after all; it just is (even though it could've been something else instead).

*I know some theists argue that this is the best of all possible worlds, which is why God brings forth this world rather than some other possible world. But taking one good look around us, and this doesn't sound very convincing at all.