Nothing truly has any explantion for existence.

... However far you go back to earlier states, you will never find in those states a full reason why there should be any world rather than none, and why it should be as it is. Therefore, even if you suppose the world eternal, as you will still be supposing nothing but a succession of states and will not in any of them find a sufficient reason... it is evident that the reason must be sought elsewhere. -Leibniz

Leibniz intended that there was a necessary being, one whose explanation for existence was that its non-existence was impossible, to terminate the regress of explanation.

A grand assumption, IMHO.

He thought he'd proven it - quite a few agree with him. The idea that there is an infinite regression of causes is unwholesome to many. Ex nihil nihil fit, as they used to say.

I think everything that exists has an explanation, but some explanations might be too complicated/advanced for one (or anyone) to understand; therefore, this "thing" might be said to not have an explanation, but it is ONLY because of the lack of understanding one person or a group.

Assume here a complete explanation, even if it's one that we haven't or cannot give.

What is a complete explanation as opposed to an incomplete explanation?
Anyway you didn't say "complete" in your question, so I assume it's any sort of an explanation.

A complete explanation for a thing is just that. An incomplete explanation may be from lack of knowledge on our part, and in a sense leaves room for other possibilities. An explanation for a high cancer rate may involve a chemical plant nearby, but the complete explanation (for example) would involved more than that (eg certain gene structures).

Of course it's not going to be easy for anyone to give a complete explanation for everything, like I said before, this doesn't change the fact that a complete explanation does exist.

If something is (existing), then it has an explanation.

Well, on that point I didn't claim that the lack of given explanation equates to the lack of a complete explanation - quite the opposite in fact. That was my point.

However, that does not mean that everything that exists *does* have an explanation for its existence.

Ok, but I don't see how something could not even have an incomplete explanation.

As I said, an incomplete explanation is from *our* perspective.

I also gave an example of an incomplete explanation.

Yeah, I got your example.

*reads over again*

Let me ask you this, is it possible for a "thing" to have two complete explanations for it's existence?

No, I don't think so. Either it would be two things, or one explanation.

That's not to say an event cannot be such that if one set of explanatory causes didn't take place, the event would not have occurred.

There's no way to explain Michael Jackson.....

Nothing has an explanation like the bermuda triangle...

Yes, but we aren't able to access all of them.

I doubt it.

Physical reality, i agree, often bases truth upon other truths, which leads to circular reality. Truly, i believe that everthing has an explanation. However, it cannot be explained in physical terms. Only the transcendence of physicality can lead to a state in which physical existance has an explanation. But this, being much more subtle than current scientific acheivement, is often disregarded as being mystical and inapplicable.

Everything has an explanation, with the exception of God. His eternal existance can't be explained.

Is God not explained by his very nature?

nope

no
you exist
do you have an explanations as to WHY you exist?
and if there are, we are just to dumb to found out WHAT the explanation is

Not everyhting has an explanation, its just there!!