Does anything exist?

Here Bill Vallicella contrasts Does anything exist? with Why does anything exist?  The former seems to admit the answer Yes, despite the non-sortal nature of anything, so why should we rule out the latter?  We could answer that in the former anything has a disjunctive character:  all we need to do to answer in the affirmative is demonstrate some single thing.  The latter, in contrast, has a conjunctive character.  We are not being given the chance to choose some single thing and then explain its existence.  We are being asked to give a single reason for everything, as outlined in an earlier post.  Note the contrast between Does anything exist and if so why? which has a disjunctive feel with Why does anything exist?  which is definitely conjunctive. The distinction remains when we eliminate to exist, however:  Is there anything and if so why? and Why is there anything?  We can't blame the Latin this time.

Addendum Monday 4 June

In a follow-up post the Maverick says

I can count the pens and penguins on my desk.  There are five pens and zero penguins. (It's a tad warm for penguins here in the Sonoran desert.)

Maybe Bill has put his finger on a possible answer.  Part of the reason there is any concrete contingent being is that parts of the world are sufficiently cool for nuclei to capture electrons to form atoms, atoms to bind together to form molecules, and molecules to clump together to form the material lumps that we identify as things, including ourselves.  At least this explanation applies to everything, as I think the question requires.  Now we just have to explain protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Not sure these are things, though.  Nor that this is the kind of answer Bill is seeking.