The P vs. NP problem is one of the most fundamental open questions in computational complexity. This paper presents a Prime Mover Proof, a self-verifying argument that establishes P ≠ NP. The proof asserts that proving P ≠ NP is itself an NP problem, meaning its difficulty serves as direct empirical evidence that NP is distinct from P. To reinforce this result, we present three supporting mathematical proofs: 1. Set-Theoretic Proof — Establishing the fundamental separation between P and NP. 2. Constructive Proof — Demonstrating that proving P ≠ NP is an NP problem. 3. Reductio ad Absurdum Proof — Showing contradiction if P = NP were assumed.We introduce a computational framework based on Origin, Approach Space, and Destination Space,providing a structured model for decision problems. Additionally, we clarify how truth tables extend to NP problems, including weighted solution spaces such as knapsack-style problems.By combining logical elegance with mathematical rigor, this proof offers a compelling case forP ≠ NP that is direct, self-verifying, and independent of reductionist assumptions.We welcome further analysis and discussion from the computational complexity community.