Noted your points.
Note what I have been doing is like any typical intellectual, i.e. defend one’s thesis until proven to be wrong but at the same time realizing there is no definite answer in Philosophy;
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
My thesis [God is an impossibility] can be proven wrong very easily, just simply produce the evidence [empirical & rational] of a God.
This is typical everywhere where existing claims are proven wrong with justifiable evidence all the time, e.g. in Science, court of law, etc. With the availability of DNA testing many court decisions were proven wrong and accused freed.