Creator of the universe doctrine makes us ask if creator is Verb or Noun?

Why do people like Alister McGrath emphasise the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"?

Is the why about accounting for existence? If yes then this turns God into an attempted explanation. But what if God is supposed to be a verb not a noun? Many say that the only thing that matters is being open to God and letting him do good through us. So to them, what matters is God the verb - God the representation of how we ought to live. This makes the emphasis on his being a creative source of reality misplaced and immoral.

It would be wrong to put trying to explain the existence of the universe first. It gives God as a proposed scientific theory.

Or is the question about trying to drive you to answer that love made all things and so we must dedicate ourselves to loving everyone?

Then it is more about inspiring than explaining. And if it were really about love the question would be, "Why do we love when there might have been no love at all?"

Perhaps God is both a verb and a noun but surely he would be more of a verb then? It would be wrong to use the question then to get people to decide that there must be a God for creation needs to be explained.

If God is more of a verb then science by testing love is testing God. Religion is guilty of deceit for trying to keep God and science apart in case God ends up being debunked.

The why stuff is saying the universe has a purpose. But what if God made it just because he could? Also, to say it is for a purpose sounds strange when he has the option of making a universe wherein there is no life at all. What purpose would it have? And there is no problem with God making it assuming that God creating makes any sense.

There is immoral and moral and morally neutral. Believers always assume the purpose of existence is that morally there will be more good than bad. But what if God is aiming for a result that is neither moral or immoral - morally neutral?