Dear tsig,
I agree, and, that's a good question! I'm happy you asked it. Let me take a stab at it.
If we view it in terms of Hegel, as expounded by W.T. Stace, we have the difference between the real, but non-existent, on the one hand, and the existent, but non-real, on the other. Stace talks about how the universals, such as whiteness, length, sharpness, and so on, are called “real,” but, don't exist, because there is nowhere in the Universe we can point to as being whiteness itself, length itself, sharpness itself, and so on. These universals are real, but, they do not exist in time and space. That which does exist in time and space, we say “exists.” So, salt exists, and is white and salty, but, that which exists is not strictly real, in the terms given, whereas whiteness and saltiness are real but don't exist.
Now, he took a hundred pages to talk about the above, and I'm squeezing it into a paragraph, but, overall it's not a terribly difficult concept to grasp. He goes on to talk about how the real is associated with Being—eternal entities, outside of time and space--and the existent is associated with Becoming--that which changes in time and space. If I were to seek an explanation for where God came from, I would look to this schema and ask if God were not an entity that is, according to traditional descriptions of Him, more real than existent, more Being than Becoming. (Excluding all questions of the Incarnation.)
Well, you will say, where do real things come from? Where does Being come from? Here there is the possibility of being evasive. I could say, “ 'Come from' implies time, and Being is outside of time, so the question doesn't apply,” but, that doesn't address the meaning of the question “Why?”. Why should there be Being at all?
If Being didn't exist, there would be (according to my reasoning) no source for the Becoming, which reason tells us cannot have existed forever. So, without Being, there can be no Becoming.
But, that isn't satisfying either, because we can still ask why should there be Being and not nothing?
Here, Stace (who never raises the topic of God, mind you) offers a solution, namely that from our experience we can understand that Being and Nothingness are essentially the same. That is, take something, like a salt-pot, and describe it: glassy, metallic, perforated, rigid, octagonal lower cross-section, contains salt, etc., and also “exists”. The salt-pot exists. Now, take away those qualities one by one, until only the “existence” quality remains. What are we left with? Apparently, nothing. Being and Nothing are equivalents. Stace goes on to describe this fact's relevance to Hegel's triadic system of Logic, but, we don't need to venture there. Suffice to say that Being and Nothingness are conceptually equivalent, in this manner of thinking.
If so, we have a problem that needs rephrasing, because Being and Nothing being equivalent crashes the related question, “Why is there anything rather than nothing?” “Anything” and “nothing” are, in this schema, the same, and so there's no conceivable alternative to them. Why should Being be, presupposes the alternative of Nothing, but, if Being and Nothing are equivalent, there can be no question of why, for there is no alternative to the alternative (i.e. Nothing).
So, God is real, but, doesn't exist, and God is real because there is no alternative to His reality, because both Being and Nothingness are equivalent, here. God is a necessary entity, in other words.
Why is God a necessary entity? For the reasons just given. There's no getting away from Him.
That is my best understanding of the situation, at present.
Cpl Ferro
