Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Make sense ?

Sort of. But you know what logos means, right?

Quite plainly it means "to communicate" or "to speak aloud." So to be "logical" is not only to be clear in one's thinking, but also clear in one's communication-- or one's "speaking aloud." In essence, there is no logic transpiring unless one can be understood.

My advice to you is to do the necessary work to make your proof understandable by others. As is, your proof is constructed to only make sense to you. But that's not what a genuine proof ought to be. A genuine proof is one's own logic that is made understandable to others. Philosophy is not masterbation, after all. If others can't possibly understand it, then no "speaking aloud" has transpired... and thus no logic has transpired... despite all the thinking that has been done.

 I have made my disproof understandable to others, because the language wherein the disproof is cast is per se intelligible.  It will not be intelligible to all Others, for, all Others are not energetic enough, and, toughminded enough to apprehend what is, in fact, intelligible. 
My central task is to posit an intelligible language, not subject to future defeat; my responsibility is not, cannot possibly be, to reduce my language to being intelligible to every non-toughminded weakling.
If I eject/toss-away the authentic difficulty which is attendant upon my position, I subject my position to being killed by Other intellect.  If I make my position readily available to everyman, to every non-toughminded person, to weaklings, I thereby compromise the indefeasibility of my argument, by diluting the inherent defensive structure contained therein.  Negatio.