A Necessary Being?

[robvalue]

Well sure, it's logically consistent. A "necessary existent being" is just an "existent being". The being either exists or it does not. Unless you're saying it's also invulnerable to destruction or something.

By "Necessary Being," , I obviously don't simply mean "an existent being." By "Necessary Being," again, I mean "something which cannot not exist."

Me and you are existent beings, but we are not "Necessary Beings." It is possible for me and you to not exist, or to have not existed (we, indeed, did not exist at the time of dinosaurs). Existence is only predicated to us once we find out that we actually exist in the real world.

A "Necessary Being," however, unlike me or you, cannot not exist. Existence is in the very definition of a Necessary Being. That is what philosophers mean when they speak of a "Necessary Being."

It's possible I can't exist because I can be killed? My energy will still exist, it will just change forms. And the energy existed before "I" came about.

Or are we talking about hypothetical realities and not the one we actually have?

So is "necessary" just indestructible then? Because I'd say it's pretty impossible for me to not exist when I exist. Of course, what you mean by "me" is rather vague. I'm a collection of ever changing chemicals.