Is There a Constant Reality That Doesn't Have an Explanation?

i worry that later on in the argument, we sort of learn that this necessary being explains all of contingent reality. And so it would seem that we can't affirm that premise. Can't affirm that possiblya contingent reality doesn't have an explanation. I mean, i actually think that you can then build from there. So i have this kind of sherlock's home principle, where if you have an available explanation, and it's the only available explanation, then you have good reason to think that it actually is an explanation. It'ud be different if you had no available explanation, whill, if you have independent reason to think there is a necetuay existing foundation. Now it