They are the points of contention which define your position. Not "weak points". Conveniently enough, this was an earlier point in this thread. That the atheist has beliefs. And the beliefs regarding P1 P2 and P3 are well known. Whether you believe that they are weak or not is not the issue at hand.
In fact, your belief regarding them were acknowledged and
points 1-6 along with further clarification
actually began with P4. Going back to the analogy, we have radio waves and voices on a radio. The nature of radio waves given through appropriate text, experimentation, deduction, application of that data, and the analysis of phenomena, which shows why the radio waves cannot be seen, conditions which render radio waves imperceptible, what is needed to capture and utilize radio waves, and why the voice on the radio is what constitutes as evidence for radio waves, are what the points given address.
The way in which you addressed it was P4 and P5. Again everything was stripped. This of course left the door open for its regard as a "mere stipulation" or "ambiguity". A different form of presentation, but the same mechanism devised to invoke that same line of thinking.
"God is invisible and is seen through his works as man. Man exists". Or to make it clearer what you're trying to do with your "helpful" syllogisms, radio waves are imperceptible and can be heard through voices on the radio. Voices on the radio exist (therefore radio waves must exist). If you feel like there is something missing is because there is. You've scrubbed clean all determinants and methods of inquiry along with references to text on the nature of radio waves and determinants and conditions met linking radio waves to voices on the radio.
When you are ready to actually see how we, at a point of isolation, determine that a voice on the radio is coming from radio waves, apply it. Or you may just see the methods of inquiry and verification based on conditions (given multiple times) in conjunction with points 1-6.