Contigent existence transform into necessary existence. It depends on the situation.

Thanks so much, Anirbid, for your insight!

The notion of a necessary being is not necessarily (!) incoherent but certain articulations of it might be incoherent or at least underexplained. Logical (or de dicto) necessity and metaphysical (or de re) necessity are often conflated and need to be distinguished, and the notion of necessity as applied to abstract entities (e.g. the null set or even sets in general ) would be quite different from the necessity of concrete entities. “Q is conditionally necessary” is probably incoherent unless it just means, for some P, “necessarily, if P then Q”. One sense of necessity in which God is supposedly a necessary being, viz. existing in all possible worlds and entirely self-sufficent in each world, seems coherent. But consider the notion of necessary being in Aquinas’s 3rd Way: “…not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not”. Aquinas’s notion of necessity as something that may be caused seems fraught, for at first blush it appears to be akin to conditional necessity.