No, your “expansion” is merely a different question.
My expansion was just that: taking “Why is it [God’s] nature to exist?” and replacing the word “God” with its meaning “someone whose nature is to exist”. And, of course, rewording a little so that it would be less awkward - and that gives us “Why does someone whose nature is to exist has nature that is to exist?”.
Great! You just formulated a proof of God’s existence!
Now, it is not a very good proof (otherwise you would see what you have proved), but that’s still great progress!
One problem here is that “bare fact” is not something that is explained by itself. It is something that has no explanation at all.
Oh, does it? In that case, how comes the word “multiverse” exists?
I’m pretty sure that you do not. The method you describe would look like this: “I look to reality and my senses tell me that Moon has a colour of green cheese. Therefore I make a conclusion that Moon is made of green cheese.”.
Also, I said nothing about conclusion being or not being “favorable”. If you do not understand my position, it might be a good idea to ask about it.
You mean you have not heard of electrons, protons, neutrons?
Perhaps you should take your time and formulate your position a bit more precisely?
You know, that’s an interesting double standard. You demand demonstrations from others but yourself offer grand declarations (“every one I have seen rests on uncertain or else false premises”) without any demonstration. As if your opinion was “true by default”.