No ''God just is'' is not my position and God satisfies the criteria for sufficient reason for the universe which is the opposite of the universe just is.
But Vlad, you continually fail to define god in a sufficiently robust manner to come close to determining whether that definition satisfies the criteria for sufficient reason. So how on earth you can conclude it satisfies those criteria is quite beyond me.
But also a judgement that something exists because it has to exist (not that this has come close to being demonstrated for god) is pretty well an argument that that thing "just is" - so you do seem to be terribly confused.
And we've discussed this concept, and its corollary of necessary entity, perviously. The notion that something could have sufficient reason and/or be a necessary entity doesn't mean it does have those features. All sorts of things could be claimed to be of that nature - the argument only gains traction when there are no other explanations that do not require that entity to exist that are credible, or further that all other explanations have been demonstrated to be false. So in the context of the universe we need to ask the question - are there credible explanations for the universe that do not require god and the answer is, of course there are - many of them, plenty of which are imbued with the levels of evidence that is completely lacking for god.
But we can go further - this seems to be based on the premise that somehow there must be a necessary entity or sufficient reason, in other words that the universe could not, theoretically, not exist. That claim seems to lack credence - just because the universe actually exists doesn't mean that theoretically it must exist. I used a child/parents analogy previously and will state it again. If I exist then my parents must have existed (they are necessary entities) - but that does not mean that my parents theoretically could not have existed - of course they could, and it would mean that I wouldn't exist either.
