The following is a reference request, not an invitation for argument. However, I do welcome argument if that's what you feel like doing.
By the "cosmos" I mean all that exists---not just physical stuff but mental stuff too, and anything else that exists. So for instance if God exists then God is a part of the cosmos.
Intuitively, it seems to me that you couldn't ever have an explanation for the existence of the cosmos. After all, if you want to explain why something exists, it seems like you should appeal to the existence of some other thing. But you can't do that with the cosmos, on pain of circularity.
But then I don't really know how to defend the premise that in order to explain something existing, you must appeal to something existing. The alternative strikes me as impossible, but I don't know how to prove it.
Are there any philosophers who take this view? If so, how do they go about defending it?