There are a few differences in the three different arguments, that prove god exists. In the "Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. They are also known as arguments from design" This statement means basically that with the earth being so complex with its designs and functions. Ordered parts working together is what the article says. They compare the earth with a watch and its moving part working together to make such a machine. I do agree with this statement somewhat because its hard to imagine man creating earth.
"The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it." This argument means that the universe as whole is very hard to imagine by man because it is so big and we have never seen the universe ourselves. If the universe was created by god, what was it created for. Also, the article implies what is god's purpose of existence. I also agree with this article to an extent as well because there is no logical explation for the universe except for the big bang theory which I personally do not agree with.
The last argument is the ontological argument which describes the existence of an all perfect god. This article defines god as the super power of the world, the greatest being ever known. So with that said can humans imagine another being with even more power? So if there is only one all powerful being, there can only be one god. To us humans we only imagine other humans who are for the most equal. If there must be someone greater, it must be god.
I agree with all of them to an extent because they all tie in with the existence of god. But if I have to pick on ...