I define ‘existence’ here as the totality of being, and I take it as obvious that existence is actual. In this context, ‘necessary’ will be defined as ‘must exist because it cannot fail to exist’.
The reason I ask this question is because the absence of existence, or what I will call ‘absolute nonexistence’, seems impossible to me. Unless we are prepared to entertain the idea that existence could have come out of absolute nonexistence, then it seems that existence has always been here in some form. Likewise, if we assume that existence’s presence cannot turn into absolute nonexistence, then it seems as though existence will always be here in some form.
I’m not denying that existence changes form, but what I’m stuck on is this idea that there could have been or could be absolute nonexistence.
And if it were true that absolute nonexistence is impossible, would that mean that existence itself is necessary? After all, if absolute nonexistence is ruled out as a possibility, then only existence remains.