We have trouble answering such questions because of the poor ways we pose them.
The semanticists have a rule I find useful here:
The verb 'to be' carries no information. It functions as an empty vessel into which we pour our assumptions.
When we reword the questions to make our assumptions explicit, they also become specific and (usually) falsifiable, lending themselves to rational inquiry to a much greater degree.
Also, the question 'why' admits an infinite recursion into the line of questioning.
The question "Why is there X
Here, as in software projects, we produce the best results when we get the specs right at the beginning.