We are more impressed by how something is put together than in that it exists or how it exists. The religious assertion, "God is the answer for why there is something rather than nothing" does not impress as much as the design argument does. Its too boring and too abstract. It is not something very human, or personal. We easily think God is the watchmaker and the universe the watch. That is philosophy with the popular touch.
Despite saying they focus on how there is something rather than nothing, Christians are really focused on how the universe looks designed. Also if there is something when nothing is the default, then even if it is chaos, it is still designed. Nothing becoming something needs design. It is immaterial if it is organised or not. The galactic mess you see in Science Fiction movies is designed. Also a seed cut in half may look like nothing and no more impressive than a turd but is filled with design to give it great potential, to become something amazing.
Are they saying that for anything at all to exist from nothing it is designed? Yes. Its emergence has to be designed. What it is and does and does not do has to be designed.
They argue God did the planning and designing. Christians think the designer has given us a designed universe and life as a gift.
Humans can’t thrive on grass. That must be a flaw then in the design. Plus reproduction or childbirth is riddled with huge errors then. All babies are born premature for they are completely helpless. Their heads are too big so the mother needs a lot of assistance to deliver. And the potential to get pregnant starts before the hips may be wide enough. Christians are in denial or lying when they will not call these things stupid or at least undesigned or incomplete. That shows that with some things at least, they don’t give a damn what the designer may be doing and may be thinking that the flaws are just meant to be and are not really flaws. The artist who intends a smudge on the painting is not ruining it but making it right.
To say there is an intelligent designer is to say it is bigger than you and there is the real, if small, possibility that it will harm you for admitting its incompetence or indifference or even deliberate malice at least in some things. A threat is a threat. And you have no right to downplay a threat to others, "It may not happen" unless that threat is something they have to live with. God is only a belief and we do not die from atheism. We don't need the risks that come with it like we need the risk to go out on the motorway driving. The higher power notion threatens people to agree with it and thus it endangers the integrity of science.
The fact remains that the first thing we should assume when we see a mess is that it was unintended and a designer is out of the question. Mess is sort of trying to say, "I am not designed." Going any further by positing that it must have come from nothing or something by the power of some kind of entity is going too far. It is like looking at what the painting expresses and refusing to see but wanting to see what is on the other side of the canvas. It is over-thinking. Let the thing just be.
Religion does the same thing with morality. It wants to connect it to God. So you are condemned if you see it as immoral for a baby to suffer needlessly through neglect. Who cares if you go no further than, "Maybe I don't know why its immoral. But the main thing is that I do." To use a baby to get you to over think is twisted.
A design that needs you to look too hard to see is a poor one.