Necessary Thing

[robvalue]

Ah well, yes. By definition, "a thing that exists" cannot not exist.

But that doesn't tell us anything, because we're simply assuming our conclusion by definition. (That's not a criticism of Evie, it's a problem with how this whole question is posed.)

Could it have been that nothing existed? Maybe. Perhaps there is something or other which has the power to end all existence. Maybe it could have done so in the past, but chose not to. Maybe it still could.

This question, to me, is all about speculation. Just assuming that things we cannot observe behave like things we can observe is pointless. You can't ever verify this. (When I say "observe", I mean detect or measure in some way. It doesn't have to be directly.) Just saying "well it would have to work like that" is similarly pointless. Jumping from observable to non, applying your preconception, then coming back to observable with a "conclusion" you're actually going to act upon is balls-out crazy. It's simply reaffirming what you want to do/believe.

I'm happy to just say "I don't know, nor have any firm beliefs, about things that are outside our scope of investigation". The time to form beliefs about such things is when we find a way to investigate them. If that happens to be never, then we've still gained nothing practical by speculating.