Sure, with regard to anything that we think and feel we can always fall back on “it just is”. As though that in and of itself explains why it is this something and not another. And how that in turn definitively encompasses why there is something instead of nothing at all.
But at least psychologically merely believing that “it just is” is enough to offer a particular “I” some measure of comfort and consolation.
Rationally and virtuously are at all the same because while the former can be explained by logic the latter can only explained by emotion
Unless of course you are an objectivist of the Ayn Rand school. A capital letter Objectivist.
And I challenge anyone here using only logic to explain why there can only be something instead of nothing. And why it can only be this something and not another.
Logic it would seem is only applicable to that matter able to evolve into minds able to invent philosophy able to grapple with “rules of language” used in communicating what is said to be rational or irrational thinking.
The fact of the matter is that there is no objective way for demonstrating the right thing to do for it can only be subjectively determined
But even here how would you go about demonstrating that beyond all doubt? How can we know for certain that moral and political narratives are not in fact just existential contraptions rooted out in particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially?
Here and now I certainly think this is a reasonable assumption. But then the gap between what I think I know about it and all that can be known about it going all the way back to an ontological understanding of existence itself doesn’t go away.