All science can tell us is that a particular cause A is followed by a particular effect B. Why A should become B is an inexplicable mystery. Even if we discovered all the intermediate changes between A and B, we would be left with the series A, A1, A2, A3 ... B, and the sequence A A1 would be just as mysterious as the sequence A B. The sequence is just a fact that is. It dogmatically asserts itself into the world without explanation. Hence the entire principle of causation explains nothing. It cannot even explain particular facts, never mind the universe itself. Even if we discovered the first cause of the universe, and the entire subsequent series of causes and effects, it would leave the universe itself a complete mystery.
But while it is impossible to see why a cause should be followed by an effect, if we compare the premises in a logical syllogism with the conclusion, we can see immediately why the conclusion should follow from the premisses. The premisses are the reason of which the conclusion is the consequent. If there is any explanation of the universe, it has to be a reason, not a cause. If we discovered a first reason behind the world, as opposed to a first cause, we would have an explanation of the universe. If we can see the reason of the world, then the world follows necessarily as a logical consequent from its antecedent.
Science is concerned with the causes of the world, what properties things have, what forces govern them, how they interact with other things; and if we wish to explain the universe, this entire mode of explanation is futile.
It is, of course, conceivable that the universe does not have any explanation. But that is irrelevant to the argument. If it has any explanation, the explanation has to be a reason of which the universe is a consequent, and cannot be a cause of which the universe is the effect. And this a philosophical and religious question, not a scientific question.