Fast, God made the laws of nature and you're being evil, but if you ask me hypothetically I'd say that everything is an explanation, and regularities are made by explanations. Explanations are made by regularities from other things which are made by explanations. Left and right are the same thing in that sense, and all that is, is God. Thank God nature is so balanced and neat. Simply impossible to be randomly occurring in any way, and in in way explained the presence of God is undeniable.
I am not being evil, nor have I denied that God is (in His goodness) responsible for the laws of nature. I'm asking a linguistic question--a question about language. It has to do with philosophy of language. Let me give you an introductory example:
It's what's referred to as the "use/mention" distinction. Most often in discussions, we use (use, I say) words. For instance, "I need to feed my cat." I used the words in that sentence. Now, consider this sentence: "the word, "cat" has three letters. Yes, technically, I used (in the lamen sense) the word, "cat," however, in philosophy circles, we call that mentioning the word. The minor point here is that when we're talking about the word itself and not the meaning or it's referent, it's considered to have been mentioned.
This distinction is important, as many philosophical discussions often come down to semantics, and a common confusion (in much need of avoidance) is between whether the topic has turned to words themselves versus their meaning and referents. I can feed, pet, and care for my cat, but none of those things can be done to the word, "cat."
I have a cat, and it's name is, "crooked tail kitty." That is a name, and in this instance stands as a single term. It's a three-worded term. If I talk about what the term refers to, then I'm talking about what can be fed, petted, and cared for. Notice that in this thread, I'm talking about the term, "laws of nature." Granted, I'm interested in what it refers to, but never once did I say anything about how the regularities in nature came to be.
You said everything is an explanation. Is an explanation, you say. Well, that doesn't come across as quite right to me. Perhaps everything that is has an explanation, but that (to me) sounds a bit different. Consider the Moon. We may have an explanation for why it orbits our planet, but to say that the moon itself is an explanation, well, doesn't appear to accord with how we typically speak.