Commonsense questioning of the purpose

Consider these 2 separate sentences. John is preparing an omelet. There is an omelet there. After reading the first sentence, it occurs to you by commonsense that the omelet is being prepared for someone to eat (probably, John himself). In the second sentence it is not so easy, natural or “mentally-fluent” to occur that the omelet kept there is for someone to eat ultimately. Both the sentences talk about the existence of an omelet. But the difference is that the first sentence is talking about the preparation of one. So it's talking about the creation of an omelet. There is an action associated with an omelet in the first case. Whereas in the second case, there is just the mention of the mere existence of an omelet somewhere. ‘Actions having a purpose’ is more strike-friendly to the mind than mere ‘existence having purpose’. In other words, questioning ‘why?’ to actions is more natural and prompt than doing the same to mere existence. There is an allied minor point - the promptness of questioning a ‘why’ is more accentuated in the first case due to a ‘creation in process’ - an unfinished action - which creates the impact of “something happening” as against merely something being there (e.g. a building standing by the road).