If 'necessary being' is a coherent concept, its necessity must be grounded in the structure of reality, not stipulated by definition, per Scotus's formal distinction between essence and existence.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Based on where you are in your exploration

(Medieval realist metaphysics)

The defining nature of a species, held by some to be distinct from and capable of surviving the destruction of all individual members of that species

existence(Kant's analysis in the Critique of Pure Reason as applied to the ontological argument)

Not a real predicate or positive determination; it does not add to or enlarge the concept of a subject.

formal distinction(Scotus's account of the relationship between nature and haecceity in a particular)

A distinction between inseparable features that are nonetheless not identical — neither really distinct nor merely conceptually distinct

grounded in(whether distinctness or identity is explained by intrinsic features)

To be explained by or to have its reason or basis in something else—like how a tree being wet is grounded in (explained by) recent rain.

necessary being(Theistic metaphysics)

A being that exists and is God in every possible world

This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.