At the risk of going round in ever decreasing circles, more thoughts on the question: "If God created the universe, the same question still stands. Why is there a God rather than no god?"

This is, of course, a conceptual issue and, as we know well enough, views of God are many and varied, and so discussions of the subject tend to be fraught with mutual misunderstanding and confusion. However, based on the proviso that one cannot present objective proof one way or the other, this, in regard to one kind of concept, which for the sake of this post I'll call 'Fredism' (I trust that Fred won't mind): -

Atheism has it that the universe is the way it is because the laws of physics are such as they are, and the laws of physics are such possibly because of a previous scientifically explicable cause, and so on, possibly ad infinitum.

Fredism has it that, ultimately, a first cause underlies all of existence, be that a multiverse or whatever, and this first cause does indeed 'precede' all by 'infinite regression', being the 'absolute' infinity beyond all infinities.

Atheists tend to find Fredism uninteresting because it gets them no closer to understanding the first cause. This is a scientifically valid perspective which leads them to declare of Fredism, incredulously, "Wow, that's useful!"

In fact, people do find Fred useful. It allows them to conceptualise - based upon their experience, and however vaguely - an actual first cause, lying at the 'point' of infinite regression , i.e. in absolute transcendence, that necessarily determines the purpose of all else. They therefore have what one might call a specific and ultimate spiritual 'location' or 'being' for all that they see as having real value.

So for many, that's why there is a God. For them, Fredism is the only truly rational concept of life, the universe and everything.

"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler