Final answer:
The distinction between necessity and eternity is a vigorous debate in philosophy, pivoting on whether a necessary being (like God) must exist always or can be contingent.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question you've asked touches on a fundamental debate in philosophy about the nature of necessity and the existence of God, particularly within the context of philosophical arguments such as the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Contingency. According to historical philosophical views, a necessary being was one that always existed, whereas nowadays, philosophers argue that eternal does not necessarily equate to necessary. This distinction has prompted the exploration of possible worlds, where a being might be eternal in some but not all.
Historical philosophical arguments typically endorsed the idea of God as a necessary, always-existing being, while modern perspectives consider more complex scenarios involving possible worlds where this may not hold true.
For example, Samuel Clarke's Argument from Contingency presents a notion of God as a necessary being upon which all contingent beings depend. This concept has its roots in ideas proposed by philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and has evolved through the works of various theologians and philosophers.
Whatever the perspective, the debate rages on, with some philosophers questioning the logic behind declaring anything as necessarily existing. Counter arguments invoke the potential eternity of the universe itself or question the existence of a necessary being altogether. Thus, there is not a universally accepted 'correct' position, but instead a spectrum of arguments supporting different views of necessity and contingency.