Are you saying no evidence of something is proof it exists?
This why you believe in your particular magic man in the sky?
No evidence of something existing and it not existing is far more likely than, having no evidence and it existing.
Your stupidity is really on display!

I said, "One person saying there's no evidence of something
IS NOT EVIDENCE that the opposite is true."
And from that, you deduced, "no evidence of something
is proof it exists?"
Oh, to be so oblivious to reality.
Another way of saying it is, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," in the context of looking to prove who was at a crime scene. Failing to find fingerprints, security footage, or DNA only means you can't prove they were present. But, that in no way provides proof they were not there -- just that they didn't leave any evidence that you were able to find. What if they wore gloves, had access to edit the security recordings, and were covered enough to avoid leaving any form of DNA?
So, the TRUTH is not supported by the available EVIDENCE. I guess he wasn't there.

Science is based on asking a question, and looking for BOTH evidence that it's true AND evidence it's false.
The general idea that "you can't prove a negative" is not the same as "you can't prove something is false." Many mathematical and philosophical theorems and formulas allow us to prove whether a statement is true or false.
If I'm going to have to explain everything I post to you, this is going to get monotonous.