In honor of Mohan's post, I wanted to pose the following multiple choice exam about Leibniz' question.
The question, "Why does anything exist?" is
(B) Meaningful, but such that it cannot be answered.
(C) Meaningful, and can be answered by using naturalistic methodology.
(D) Meaningful, can be answered, but cannot be answered using naturalistic methodology.
I think that exhausts logical space, but feel free to add (E), (F), (G), etc.
Of course there are problems with all of these. (A) is positivistic (the horror, the horror), (B) is skeptical at best and veering into transcendental idealism at worst, (C) runs afoul of the fact that science just describes how adequately constrained systems necessarily evolve, and (D) risks onto-theology, which is a fancy way of recapitulating some of the earliest critiques of transcendental idealism (crude theistic (D) type answers always tend towards inconsistent claims about causality, the natural universe being causally closed and such that God caused it to exist).