Your religious thread suggests you have little understanding of the meaning of "proof" or "truth".
Untrue. I have said nothing indicating I have problems with these terms. These assertions are yours and yours alone. Are you not man enough to own up to them?
In laymen's terms (yours) they imply a reference to "an independent reality", whereas in science they refer to consistency of working paradigms. For example, the functional requirement of "a luminiferous aether" was shown to be inconsistent with experiments on the speed of light which could be accounted for by other postulates. In THAT sense, a "negative requirement" was "proved". In scientific terms there is no functional requirement for "a creator", meaning there is no crucial test of such a postulate. In THAT sense, statements about the existence or thenon-existence of a deity is "unprovable".
In terms of ordinary logic, the statement "If P then Q" is valid in all cases except where P is "true" and Q is "false". Thus any "true observation"Q,cannot prove the truth or otherwise of its proposed cause P.
Your screwball philosophical nonsense is far removed from science, and not by accident.
The "If P then Q" line is a bluff, for those who know absolutely nothing about logic. The form you present is a KNOWN FALLACY, in fact.
Employing the actual "If P then Q form," we most assuredly do prove Q any time P is established.
There are several forms available in logic. "If D then not E" is perfectly valid, and once D should be established, the negation of E is certain.
Indeed, the MOST STRICT AND CERTAIN form of logic is Deductive Reasoning. Without the capacity to prove negatives, no deductive reasoning would be possible.
Now the issue remains: we're told it is impossible to prove negatives, yet we're also told Einstein proved multiple negatives.