Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Any conception of God whatsoever is a mental image, infact anything physical can only be said to be an image in relation to the way you are thinking about it, so all images are ultimately mental, there is no such thing as a physical image, only your mental impression and ideas about it. Indeed the entire Bible could be construed as an image, as it is words which are images/symbols which represent reality, not the actual reality itself. It makes sense that if the Bible is pointing at anything, it is pointing at a reality that is not the words being spoken, as all language is a symbol that points at reality, not the actual reality itself. Is the purpose of Religion to recite words in a certain order, or is it an actual experience the likes of which words can never truly describe? In this sense any conversation about God has no meaning, you saying "and God spoke" has no greater meaning than someone else saying "the eye of ra symbolized", both are images and the advice offered is to go beyond images.
The average Christian probably doesn't like to hear this, but face it, unity with God means unity with God. Anything and everything you speak about is God's territory, to suggest otherwise seems to suggest that God is only the creator of some things, not all, and unless I'm utterly mistaken, the english word "God" refers to an entity that creates everything instead of only a few things with the others being sourced elsewhere. It is only when you confuse the words with the actual reality that you start fighting with people over what words are the correct ones, forgetting that all words are a symbol, not the reality itself. In other words, stop making all these graven images about God and the nature of reality and experience it directly for yourself like the Bible is trying to tell you to do! Isn't the whole point an experience rather than an image?
Don't link this to your normie friends, if they look up primescholars and read the Wikipedia article they'll laugh in your face. I don't mean to make a claim as to the validity of anything they post considering I dont trust wikipedia, just wanted to give people a fair warning, this isn't something you want to share with normies if your goal is to wake them up, especially if they are the type to Google anything you send them to pull the "gotcha" type argument (which every normie I know does).
School "teaches" you to blindly and obediently accept whatever information an "authority figure" tells you as true without doing any kind of investigation on your own. Unfortunately, these so called "authority figures" are putting out information that has little to no relationship with the real world, as a result people who really took the whole schooling thing to heart are becoming crazier and utterly divorced from reality -- ignorant.
Give government the ability to ban drugs and one day they just might ban the ones you want to take! Likewise they might turn the logic of being able to tell you that you cannot consume something into them being able to tell you that you must consume something, sort of like vaccines! Constitutionally they have no right to do either, they use Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution to regulate commerce "among the several states" to justify it, which by no means affords authority to prohibit someone from possessing and consuming any substances of any kind. Even the grounds they justify the banning of substances on is pathetic!
Try to get this idea across to normies, or a "fox news Republican", and they just cannot fathom it. Despite the fact most people recognize our government is corrupt, and lie to start wars, they for some reason just cannot fathom that our government acts in total bad faith when doing so. For some reason they still cling whole heartily to the idea that when we go and slaughter people across the planet we are totally justified, we are the good guys, saviors of democracy! We are merely defeating evil, someone who was akin to Hitler! Of course 5 years later we always learn this wasn't the case whatsoever and infact we brutally killed totally innocent people for resources and power, but for some reason they keep clinging to the idea that we never engage in wars for resources or power, it's always for a "good cause". I feel like this is one of the final shells we need to crack to get through to people, that the US government acts 100% in bad faith against both its own citizens and the rest of the world.
Like you say, proof can mean a number of things, realistically it could mean an infinite number of things, but when people say the phrase "you can't prove a negative" they aren't taking the word "prove" or "proof" in an infinite sense, they mean a very strict type of proof. They mean physical proof, something tangible, not what can be logically deduced. Logically you can think of nothing, but is there an actual reality that is represented by the word "nothing"? No. Otherwise by definition it would be "something". So long as you are thinking about it logically it won't make sense, because using our logic it makes perfect sense that if you were doing x you couldn't be doing y, but when people say the phrase they aren't using it in this sense. That is the point I'm trying to get across, obviously I can take any word and have it mean absolutely whatever I want, but when people say "you can't prove a negative" they mean what I am trying to describe, they aren't talking about whether or not you can logically deduce something whatsoever, they are talking about what can happen in the real world, and in the real world you can't have something that "doesn't exist", because if you did, it would "exist".
Might there be a better way to get this point across? Probably, but language is a symbol that represents a reality, and it is tough to speak about a "non reality" using a language wherein everything has a certain reality it represents.
By negative they mean a "non event" or "nothing happening" and by "proof" they are referring to real physical evidence, not a logical deduction. You cannot do anything outside of think about the idea of nothing, you cannot hold nothing in your hand, otherwise you would be holding something. This is the principle people are referring to by the statement "you cannot prove a negative", they do not mean that you cannot logically think about the idea of nothing happening, they mean that there is no physical reality represented by the word "nothing" or something "not happening" in the same way that there is if you were to accuse someone of "doing something". The burden of proof must lie on the accuser because if something happened, logically it follows there should be evidence, if something didn't happen then logically you can only have evidence of something else happening and deduce from that something not happening, obviously having actual evidence is stronger than a mere logical deduction, thus the reason for not needing to prove your innocence, prove that an event didn't happen, prove a "non event", a "non happening", or as a lot of people put it, "you can't prove a negative". That is the meaning of the statement, that is what I've been trying to get you to see, it has nothing to do with what you are able to logically think about, hence I am saying you are thinking about this in the wrong terms, because you are.
Logically, of course it makes sense that if you were in another country you couldn't have robbed a store in a country you weren't even in, that's why I said you are thinking about it in the wrong terms. The point you are missing is that you cannot point to a "non event", something not happening, in the same way that you can point at an "event", something that did happen. Sure, you can logically deduce you didn't do something, but you aren't going to have a photo of you not doing something. You can have a photo of you doing an infinite number of other things, and from that logically conclude you didn't do this other thing, but you cannot point at you "not doing" a thing in the same way you can if you had done something.
It is for this reason that you don't make someone prove their innocence, because outside of them presenting evidence that they were doing something else, by definition, they didn't the thing they are accused of, so there isn't going to be footprints, photographs, video evidence of this not happening, only something else having happened. Otherwise anyone could accuse you of anything without any proof and you would be screwed unless you film yourself 24/7. On the flip side, if you are accusing someone of having done something, well, there should be some type of evidence that something occurred, thus the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, not the person who didn't do something.
When someone says you can't prove a negative they don't mean can you logically get someone to agree with your statement, they are referring to the fact that outside of talking about it you cannot present any evidence of a negative, a non event, something not happening, because whatever you present will be a positive, an actual event, something real. You can only think about something that doesn't exist, you can't point to it in the same way as something that does exist.
This is one of those things that we will never have a definitive answer on unless someone bites the bullet and goes and somehow removes Michelle's/Michael's clothing to confirm one way or the other. Documents can be easily manipulated to say one thing or another. The only way to really prove one way or the other here is to get someone to check!
This doesn't exactly strike me as a message being pushed by globalists. Globalists want us absolutely consumed by the world of abstractions, so totally focused on the future ahead of us while simultaneously deeply regretting our past that we've become incapable of recognizing the reality directly infront of us, feeling completely seperate and cutoff from God, nature, and our environment rather than being a part of it all.
Now, if you posted this exact same thing but changed the picture at the end to be an advertisement for UBI instead of self reflection, then yeah, I'd totally buy that this was a globalist advertisement for UBI. Without that though, this is exactly what your first thought was, showing how incredibly important it is to focus on what is real, your enjoyment, instead of abstractions, what you'll potentially have in the future.
You are thinking about it in the wrong terms, when someone says you can't prove a negative what they mean is that you cannot provide evidence that an event didn't happen. Like you say, you can provide evidence of another event that did happen, and abstract from this that something else didn't happen, but you cannot point at "nothing happening" in the same way that you can point at "something happening". Something happening can be observed, nothing happening can only be abstracted by the method you detail, you can't present something concrete and say "here, this is nothing!" because by presenting anything that means you have something.
Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit to say it's a sin punishable by death, I only meant it as a joke, but given the content of your post I would wager you also have seen that not everybody here takes too kindly to suggesting something like the number 17 being mentioned or randomly tapping your thigh while golfing has no super secret hidden meaning behind it. You only need to look so far as my being downvoted for merely joking about it to see this is the case. Of course I know it doesn't happen with every single post, but looking at the fact I was downvoted for joking about the fact it happens should show it definitely occurs.