It seems the most reasonable thing to respond with in asking “Why this particular place, this particular way?” is taking circumstance as desired, if there is a God and unless God is whimsical. While it’s hard to say whether or not there is a God, certainly it’s not hard to suggest He isn’t whimsical as long as He is seen as ideally or maxially rational; for the extent of the complexity within His creation, we’d want to say whatever God does, it is literally for the best reasons, rationally and in a moral sense, “for the good”. So, it isn’t that God cannot change His mind, for example, but that it begs the question of his being maxially rational yet thinking He should change His mind for lesser reasons. If God has a will, which we presume He does, then while there may be many possible worlds He could have created in order to accomplish His creating anything at all, naturally and given the above, this must be the only kind of world possible to best meet His reasons for creating.
If God transcends and is then ineffable, we should look at the philosophical principle of “place”; that even our most obscure abstractions are “from” reality, meaning “tied to” history, culture, needs, the concrete experience of reality itself. If we find the principle interesting, then the answer seems fairly clear as to why things are they way they are. In essence and very undramatic, the non-answer of saying “Because that’s the way God did it.” But, we’re actually saying more than that. At this point, we’ve hit a brute fact of reality and what we must realize then is that the only meaning in teleology is accepting things as they are and then asking the only question that could matter: “What are we suppose to get out of this?”
If there exists a hidden God who created a universe which necessarily gives us the idea such a being exists, through the numinous, etc., then all we can do is utter anthropomorphic ideas about God … the conclusion is simply then that our images of the gods push us into the deepest understandings we can have of ourselves. Theologically consistent in the idea of “atonement”, because we imagine we in some way are “like” God in nature.
That’s not so say something exclusive about religion and human self-realization. It is to say that no matter how one leaves the question “Does God exist?”, be that Theist or Atheist, we accept something about ourselves or reject something we think unfitting of ourselves to believe. Each, in that case, has better understood who they are because it mattered enough to take the question seriously, and accept or reject it because our response matters in some fundamental way.
I’d say the most omnipotent God is exactly the kind that presents a win for everyone regardless of their beliefs with respect to God, but exactly because whatever we do end up believing actually does change everything after all.
Just a thought.