The Leibnizian Contingency Argument
Why is there something rather than nothing? Leibniz says the universe can't explain itself.
Grounded in the research on the cosmological argument
What's the actual claim?
That the universe doesn't have to exist. It's contingent: it could've been different or not been at all. Gottfried Leibniz framed it in his 1714 essay The Principles of Nature and Grace with one question that won't leave you alone: why is there something rather than nothing? His answer: contingent things can't be their own reason. They point past themselves to something that exists by necessity. That something he calls God.
Isn't this just Kalam?
No, and confusing them is the rookie move. Kalam asks what caused the universe to begin. Leibniz doesn't care if the universe is eternal. Run time back forever and the question still stands: why does this thing exist at all instead of nothing? It's about why being is here, not when it started. An eternal universe still needs a reason to exist.