Final answer:
Anselm's Ontological Arguments are philosophical a priori arguments that attempt to establish the existence of God by asserting that God, as the most supreme being, must exist necessarily. The argument differentiates between necessary and contingent beings and has faced critiques, including Kant's assertion that existence is not a predicate. The arguments are significant in philosophical discussions of God's existence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Ontological Arguments of Anselm belong to a category of arguments in the field of philosophy that attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using purely a priori reasoning. Anselm posits that God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived and argues that this concept necessarily entails God's existence. This argument is considered an intellectual exercise that examines the nature of existence and the concept of necessary being, which purportedly does not rely on empirical evidence but solely on logical deduction.
One of Anselm's key assertions is the distinction between necessary and contingent beings. A necessary being is one whose non-existence is impossible, while a contingent being is one whose existence is not guaranteed. Anselm argues that God, as the greatest conceivable being, must exist necessarily. However, centuries later, Immanuel Kant would critique this argument, claiming that existence is not a predicate; that is, existence does not add to the essence of a being and thus cannot be a property that proves God's existence.
Anselm's Ontological Argument has faced various criticisms and alternative views, such as the Argument from Contingency proposed by Samuel Clarke. Clarke's argument holds that a necessary being must exist to account for the existence of contingent beings, assuming that not everything can be contingent.