I am not proving a negative.
I am not proving ‘God does not exist.’
‘God is an impossibility’ meant one cannot even raise the question of whether ‘God exists or not?’ i.e. moot and a non-starter.
When it is moot and a non-starter, there is no need for me to prove ‘God does not exist’ at all.
I have mentioned the process of gaining knowledge where one must start with reasoning and abducting a reasonable hypothesis to be proven and justified so that it [if proven] can be accepted as a theory [e.g. speculated theory like the Big Bang] or knowledge if JTB [e.g. Oxygen is a product of photosynthesis].
‘God is an impossibility’ [via reason] meant the question of God is not feasible at all to qualify even as a hypothesis [via abductive reasoning] within empirical-rational reality.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
This is a case of higher-reasoning ‘killing’ crude-reasoning.
Abductive reason is a form of crude-reasoning and ‘the question of God’ cannot even pass this stage of crude-reasoning.
The only basis how and why ‘the question of God [illusory]’ can arise is due to psychological compulsion within the brain/mind of theists.