Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Heywood]

Very good. Without realizing it, you have produced another argument for God's existence called "argument from particularity."

The argument is almost as you have put it. We ask: Why is the world this and not something else? Either it was designed for a purpose, such that the purpose (or end) constrained the universe (or means) to a single thing or at least a finite set; or its essence was randomly pulled somehow out of an infinity of possible worlds. But not the latter, because the probability of this world’s being chosen in such a way is exactly zero. It is impossible to consider for selection every member of an infinite set.

But purposive design entails choosing between possibilities and suggests an intelligence at work behind the scenes. Hence, another conclusion: God is smart.

The problem with this argument is it assumes that only one configuration exist. Perhaps all configurations exist and since we are in this one, we observe this one. No choice was made, it was simply an evitable consequence of all configurations existing. Since I could use this same argument to "prove" a multiverse its not really a proof of God.

However, the original argument is separate and distinct from this one. For here we compare possible forms or essences of the world: X, Y, Z, etc. In the OP, we compare existences. The question was: Why something, i.e., anything such as any of X, Y, or Z, rather than nothing?

In your OP you do not favor existence over non-existence but the counter argument I made shows there is good reason not to accept that premise.