There is a question - "Why" - that persists beyond any attempt to answer it or obviate it. The type of philosophy or scientific cosmology one chooses or develops might come down to the way in which one chooses to foreclose the question. I think it is important to keep track of the fact that the question is there, even when foreclosing it. It is the Ur-question. Why? Why me? The question has something like a modal status. Pain and awe drip from its mouth as it asks.
If there is a correlation between thought and being, the correlation lies here. Obviously philosophers today are extremely eager to deny that there is any correlation between thought and being - the real utterly outstrips the relation between mind and the world. The real could perfectly well go on existing without any minds. And the only reason there are minds is that there is a problem to be solved in the real. The real is a sort of outer limit to thought that can cause thought to transform even its most basic axioms, or could destroy thought. There are a number of different positions that argue basically along these lines.
But the cosmogonical question does not presuppose the real. The cosmogonical question is rather: why is there the real? Is it because something went wrong? Why are things unfolding? Why are they not going as well as it seems they could be?
Is the real real because of a decision? A mistake? No reason? Because of creativity? Loneliness? If one chooses to approach this question, one has very little to work with besides the affective and the decisional.
Or could the mathematic-physical endeavor actually produce an equation that accounts for the real?