Let us begin by making a contrast between the ontological argument and other forms of argument to the existence of God, such as the different versions of the cosmological argument. All such proofs start from a phenomenon, or class of phenomena, within the world, which demand explanation. They go on to show a particular type of explanation will not lead to intellectual satisfaction, however frequently it is applied. [ … ]
Proofs of the existence of the God, if they are not to be mere appeals to ignorance and incomprehension, must not depend on particular features of the world which yet are unexplained. The appeal to God is not based on particular failures of explanation but upon the provable inability of a particular pattern of explanation to give an intellectually satisfying understanding of phenomena of a certain type.