If there are natural laws causing the universe to behave regularly, then those laws would explain why the universe behaves regularly. However, this would leave unexplained why there are natural laws in the first place. One option is to postulate these laws as brute facts. Alternatively, theists might argue that God designed the laws, but in that case, God would be the brute fact, and so on.
If there are no natural laws causing the universe to behave regularly, then the scientific or physical laws we typically refer to are simply efficient descriptions developed by humans to describe the apparent regularity of the universe. In this case, there would be nothing inherently forcing the universe to behave regularly in the first place. The fact that the universe seems to behave regularly would itself be a brute fact. Perhaps the universe will stop behaving regularly tomorrow, and if so, that too would be a brute fact. (See also: If the laws of nature are not metaphysically fundamental, what alternative explanations could account for the regularities observed in nature?)
Which hypothesis has more explanatory power? They all seem to predict essentially the same outcomes. If the universe continues to behave regularly, there is no way to determine which hypothesis is correct. However, if "miracles" are real, that might falsify the "laws of nature as fundamental" hypothesis and align with either God is real or laws are mere descriptions, and the universe can do whatever it wants.