There are two major problems IMO with this:
Scientific methods have a problem with proof of absence - using observation and empirical approaches, it can prove what is there - however no amount of observations will show something is not there as a future observation may happen. This wiki article elaborates this in detail: Wiki article about evidence of absence
The other proble is the need to define God in order to try to proof it and there is no single definition that we can work on.
If there was a prediction that "if God exists there must be xxx" we can try to prove that there is no such thing, implying the existence if God is false. Without it the task is hopeless.
Science cannot provide any such proof given the notion of God is meta-physical and science operates on the physical.
To see its limitations, consider why science is unable to explain why the laws of the universe are as they are: why does heat dissipate, why does fire burn, why do forces follow certain laws... etc
The subject needed to address this question isn't science but philosophy, the discipline that underpins science and gives it its limited methods of empiricism and induction.
Great answers start with great insights. Content becomes intriguing when it is voted up or down - ensuring the best answers are always at the top.
Questions are answered by people with a deep interest in the subject. People from around the world review questions, post answers and add comments.
Be part of and influence the most important global discussion that is defining our generation and generations to come