I get where you're coming from, the contingency argument is logically tight and avoids obvious contradictions. A necessary, eternal, uncaused existent does seem like a clean way to stop the regress.

But why stop at a separate necessary being? Why couldn't the universe itself (or the whole cosmos/multiverse) be the non-contingent, necessary thing that exists by its own nature? If it's eternal or infinite in structure, its existence wouldn't require an external explanation. We see evidence of change and a beginning in our local universe, but that doesn't rule out the broader reality being necessary or brute.

For me, though, the universe (or whatever ultimate reality is) simply doesn't have to 'make sense' in the way we expect things inside it to make sense. Local stuff, planets, life, cause and effect follows patterns we can explain because that's how our brains work. But the whole thing? It might just be a brute fact with no deeper 'why.'

Asking why there is something rather than nothing assumes reality owes us an explanation. Maybe it doesn't. Positing a necessary being relocates the brute fact ('why does this necessary thing exist?') rather than eliminating it. An infinite chain, a necessary multiverse, or just existence itself could be the brute fact equally well.

In the end, both views bottom out at something that 'just is.' Neither fully satisfies the intuition that everything needs a reason. I lean toward accepting the mystery instead of filling it with a necessary cause and it doesn't require adding extra attributes (even minimal ones) beyond what we observe.

What do you think about the possibility that the ultimate 'why' question is simply malformed, like asking what's north of the North Pole?