Is There a Being Whose Essence Involves Existence?

i think a subject named can never be significantly said to exist, but only a subject described. And at existence, in fact, quite definitly, is not a predict well, you say, i believe that it is bad grammar, or rather bad syndex, to say, for example, ts elliot exists. Russell takes it to this contient objection about existence not predicate. Ah, something that's self existent, and that everything else depends on the self existent thing. That's kind of what he needs for the main conclusions he's going to draw out from the argument. So there's a transcendent thing that is not perceivable with our senses osthe root