you can prove some things do or don't exist, the problem with God is that the existence of God is proposed in a way that is non-falsifiable (not all existence claims are non-falsifiable even if some are)
But the burden of proof works the same with God as with other claims.
I'm not saying burden of proof is a form of falsification (i.e. we can know something is false until proven true), you are right about that - just because it's a good practice to not treat as true or serious an extraordinary claim that has not been given sufficient evidence or proof to back it up doesn't mean that this practice somehow is the same as proving the negative. That is, if claims of God's existence are extraordinary and not sufficiently proven or evidenced, dismissing the claim under burden of proof practices is not the same thing as proving with certainty God doesn't exist. But I never made these claims, I just said you can't treat an extraordinary claim as true until I successfully prove it's false (because some extraordinary claims are non-falsifiable, like God's existence).
Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn’t exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.
it seemed like you just said you can't show proof, then demonstrated how you can provide proof? Maybe I miss your point here.