Why Is There SOMETHING, Rather Than NOTHING?

I don't really care for the first part of this argument. Seems overly facile, and rooted in semantics. Tries to pull its validity up by its own definitional bootstraps, much like the ontological arguments for God. But the rest seems logically dead-on to me.

I really don't see the problem theists have in positing an eternal existence sans God; other than the obvious one of needing a justification for what they already believe, that is. In fact, it's basically the same argument AS the theistic one, minus the metaphysically oriented first-mover-existing-outside-space/time mumbo jumbo that only serves to complicate a rather elegant--and may I say, straightforwardly apparent-- solution regarding the existential question as to why there is something, instead of nothing. Dear theist, if you're looking around incredulously right now in disbelief that this frighteningly vast universe could exist 'just because', consider how exponentially more incredible it is that an invisible superbeing who could create something like this on a whim exists 'just because'. Now THAT boggles the mind!