There's an unacknowledged problem here, to do with "proof".

A proof is performative - you have one when folk are convinced.

Or at the least, we ought differentiate proof as demonstratively validity from proof as performative success.

No argument for the existence of god can be a proof in the first sense because no premise is incontestable.

Threads such as this - and indeed, 's "Disproving solipsism", and all other such "prove me wrong" attacks (yes, Charlie Kirk was an arse hole) depend on sliding between these two notions of proof.

The pretence is that one has a demonstrative proof when all one has is performative success within one's echo chamber. This leads to sham accusations of irrationality.

The disagreement hereabouts concerns the premises, not the validity of the arguments.