God or no god, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because there is. Why? To enable you to ask the question is as close to right as any other answer. And just as wrong. Your first mistake is assuming there is a reason. Presuppositionalism is no way to figure out anything.
Why do elements have properties?
Because they are made of different quantities and/or arrangements of particles and these same things give rise to what we call properties. Of course, if you're drilling down to a 'deeper' why, again, you're assuming there is one.
Why does consciousness exist?
Unknown. Either a feature of the scale of our brain (i.e. add enough connections and consciousness is a by-product), or the ability to be self-aware and sentient was an evolutionary advantage? If you mean the 'deeper' why, again, you are making the same mistake as every caveman that flinched at lightning did, all over again.
These are questions that I think about almost every day.
Have more sex, smoke more pot. The answers to those questions will have near to zero impact on your life, IF there are 'answers' (a human concept) about something (existence) which is in no way obliged to conform to human conceptions.
There is absolutely nothing clever about asking 'unanswerable' questions, or asking questions where the accuracy of the answer is indeterminable. It's a form of masturbation really... philosophers love it.
I always recommend that philosophers engaged in such quests of knowledge take the 'Abaddon Reality Test'.
Simply place yourself in the path of a fast moving truck in such a way that it hits you with a velcoty of 70mph. If you cease to be aware, then reality is fuunctionally real. If you continue to exist, then reality is not real.
If reality is real the best course of action is to get on with it. If it isn't then snapdragon cantaloupe marshmellow raspberry kiwi wahawalouptakolukkapip-pip-pip!
Oh... would people who see an eye and think 'what a marvelous example of design' please get their head out of the Evolution book and study evolutionary scienece, or if they have already done this, present something more substancial as an argument? Mentioning design and then probability theory is just one of those little ways people who have studied evolution a bit can tell someone doesn't know the first thing about evolution.
I've yet to encounter a teleological theory of existence that isn't wishful thinking for grown-ups who can't get over the fact this is it.