Which argument suggests that everything must have an explanation for its existence?

The Sufficient Reason Argument posits that everything that exists must have a reason or explanation for its existence, either in the form of an external cause or a necessary condition. This philosophical perspective asserts that things do not merely exist without a reason; rather, their existence can and should be accounted for. This argument is most closely associated with figures like Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who emphasized the need for a cause or explanation behind every contingent being, ultimately leading to the necessity of a necessary being, often identified as God.

In contrast, the Teleological Argument focuses on the purpose and design in the world, arguing that the existence of complex structures, such as biological organisms, is best explained by an intelligent designer. The Argument from Motion addresses the change and motion in the universe, seeking to establish a first mover that initiated all movement but does not explicitly emphasize the need for every existence to have an explanation. The Falsifiability Principle relates to scientific claims and their testability rather than the philosophical pursuit of understanding existence and causation. Thus, the Sufficient Reason Argument is uniquely focused on the necessity of explaining why things exist in the first place.