Hopefully not too banal an issue God(s) is a boring topic in place of a more interesting and pressing one. God(s) most likely came about as a response to the inherent weirdness we seem to find in us and everything else being here, present, apparent. The hoary old 'why something and not nothing?' question. Posing this question, which all the others supposedly lead towards, seems guaranteed to make us anxious and miserable. We've set up this is/ought dichotomy where what we do in this weird situation we find ourselves in has to be justified, and can only ever be justified eternalistically by bridging this gap with God or a Goddish substitute, which in turn can only be done by basically answering this question. In this mode of thinking, the mere existence of something, for its own sake would never appear to be enough. Most physicists pragmatically dismiss the Most Fundamental Question as a useless one for what they do and get routinely booed by philosophers and laypeople alike in response. But should a Complete Stance also reject it on pragmatic grounds, that it doesn't lead anywhere except nebulosity's dark underbelly, groundlessness?