Question

Hello Rabbi!
I know that many great people have already tried before me to object to this proof; with fear and trembling I’ll try as well…
The fact that the ontological proof, by a kind of magic, makes us compelled to agree that in our minds there is a proposition saying that God exists in reality—that is a fact. But the question is whether this is really a situation that can be considered a proof. Has anything actually been proved to us, and have we really been convinced by it?
The Rabbi once wrote that there cannot be formal authority over facts (a claim I very much agree with…), because it won’t help if I say aloud that there is a Garden of Eden, for example, if deep down I do not actually believe it. Isn’t the situation here similar? I say with my mouth that God exists, but have I really been convinced of it? (In a strange formulation I would say that the ontological proof is indeed a proof, but apparently it is not a proof suitable for human beings, because they are not convinced by it…)
And from another direction: each of us has a basic intuition that the ontological proof is mistaken, only we can’t quite put our finger on what is wrong with it. Why shouldn’t we continue to follow that intuition? Why should we give it up?
I know one could ask me: if so, then anywhere something is proved against my intuition, I could make the same claim—which is obviously unreasonable, since many things are proved against our intuition and we accept them as absolute truth. But it seems to me that this case should be distinguished from others. In every other case, the form of the proof is acceptable to me; it is the conclusion that surprises me and challenges my intuition. In such a case, since I accept the proof, I have no choice but to accept its conclusion. But in our case, the conclusion (that God exists) does not contradict intuition. What contradicts intuition is the proof itself. So what compels me to accept its conclusion and reject my intuition (and everyone else’s as well…) which says that the proof is flawed? (In other words… one could say that the ontological proof does indeed prove that God exists, but that is a trivial claim in this context, because the main issue is whether the ontological proof is a real proof, or merely an empty logical trick, as intuition feels. In order to reject the intuition, one must bring a proof that addresses this very level of the discussion itself.)
I would be very glad to hear your opinion, and thank you very much for taking the time…