Questions about the ontological view

Hello Rabbi
I read your booklet on the ontological view, and there were some things there that were completely understandable to me.
And the first –
I’ve always had a problem with the ontological view, in that the fact that you define that something should exist doesn’t make it so. I don’t care about your definitions.
In other words – existence is not a trait,
Or one could argue against the statement “God is perfect who exists” – it’s a beautiful statement, but it doesn’t apply in reality – you can’t simply define existence.
At the end of the notebook (only!) in the appendix, the Rabbi addressed the counter-argument that this existence is not an attribute.
Pishita!! Why did the Rabbi wait until the end to remember this? In my opinion, this is the biggest problem with the ontological view, how did the Rabbi simply ignore this at the beginning and get into a million other things?? How is this not clear?
Monday –
Even without the first question – this way of proof produces strange things (which, in my opinion, are rooted in the fact that existence is not really a property)
After all, I can define the perfect island as an island that is 3 dunams in area and is completely filled with hamburgers…. And the answers about the definition of a perfect island being a reduction because we defined an island and therefore it doesn’t apply blah blah blah, seem to me to be dodging the question instead of really giving an answer (and I think that in the end it will be possible to somehow define something that is not God but will exist), and the truth is that there is no answer because the method of proof here is flawed.
third
– In the middle of the booklet, you brought up some passage by Steinitz and rejected it.
My friends and I tried to decipher what was written there. We couldn’t understand what Steinitz said, how you rejected, and this is how you answered.
Thank you very much.