here's the problems, asaris:
if the term universe etymologically (according to my pal mr. oed) represents the fact of grouping everything into an abstract set, then it is not an object--the univers is, rather, the effect of a grouping----to wonder about a single cause is to assume that the grouping implies objectness and that the object is singular.
it is as if you confused "there" with an object and tried to impute a cause to it on that basis--except in the case of "there" you have a cause, which is your viewpoint. well, in both cases, you have a cause, and that cause is your viewpoint. the difference is that in the latter case the relational character of the category is self-evident, while in the former case, it is acquired the weight of its own history as category. but its character as category is as it is.
btw i do not know, any more than anyone else does, whether this grouping is correct or not--that is whether it speaks to basic features of what is grouped or not--i do not occupy a position outside the same frame of reference as you occupy--but this obviates nothing concerning the character of the category "universe" and its effects, particularly in the context of questions like "why does anything exist"---if you want, you could answer the question by saying that what exists is what is named, what is integrated into linguistic categories, and so if there is a cause, it is the integration of phenomena into meaning via language and so we cause meanings because we assign them--again, with the caveat in place that these assignments may or may not get to characteristics of what is described--particular modes of inquiry (sciences, say) operate to post and to attempt to resolve these types of questions....philosophy worries about the semantic contents, etc.....
here is a far more elegant version of the argument i am making---over the past couple days, i have wandered back into wittgenstein's tractatus (sounds pretentious, doesn't it? such is my 3-d life..)----have a look at the sequence of statements that makes up section 6.34 through no. 6.35. you should find them here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/wor...fk_files=13249
wittgenstein is far more elegant and to the point.
i'd love to write like this, but i talk too much and am not anywhere near as disciplined.
his work is a long sequence of beautiful objects.
btw our posts crossed....this doesnt address the post directly above.