If 'necessary existence' means only that we cannot conceive the being's non-existence, this is a merely epistemic fact that establishes no ontological conclusion about what must exist outside the aggregate.

?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.

Epistemic: "Epistemic" relates to knowledge—how we know things, what counts as knowledge, and whether we can trust what we believe to be true. It comes from the Greek word for knowledge and is used to describe questions about the reliability and validity of our beliefs and understanding. For example, "epistemic humility" means acknowledging the limits of what you can actually know for certain.
Necessary existence(Contrasted with contingent existence in discussion of God's mode of being): Existence that is not contingent; the being does not just happen to exist or not exist.
Ontological: "Ontological" refers to questions about what actually exists or is real. It's concerned with the fundamental nature of being—asking "What kinds of things are there?" rather than "How do we know about them?" For example, an ontological question might be whether numbers, ideas, or God actually exist as real things, or if they're just human inventions.
aggregate(Avicenna's argument for a necessary existent): The totality of all currently existing contingent individual things, each of whose existence is accounted for by its causal antecedents.

Based on where you are in your exploration