its not proved so cannot be disproved...?

Obviously. If a thing has not been proved, there is nothing to disprove

Some issues are outwith proof..e.g. love. empathy, God.

A logical or philosophical statement falls into one (and only one) of very few cases

A. Proved

B. Disproved

C. Not yet a or b but still possible to prove or disprove.

D. Not possible to prove or disprove.

A and B are mutually exclusive. C is transitory. D is permanent and usually can be explained with regard to WHY it cannot be proved or disproved. Off hand I can't think of another case.

The headline question is NOT a sound statement of logic. It is possible to disprove something that has not been proved yet, perhaps because that something CANNOT be proved due to its being inherently false. See, for example, the old phlogiston theory of heat transfer, which was disproved conclusively by experiments in thermodynamics using something called a "bomb calorimeter."

I would think that if you CAN prove something then it would be impossible to disprove it except by showing that the proof was faulty.

I think youre meaning to say if its not proved it does not need disproving

you can only disprove something by proving something else that occupies the same equations as it

such as i was told the car is blue(not proven does not need disproving), no i can see it, its red(proven, also disproves blue car)

As for things such as god, it goes like this, i believe in god and this book says hes real and i also feel him at church(not proven, does not need disproving) then theres the fact that the bible has been wrong on a lot of things and the fact that people feeling things like 'the holy spirit' can be summed up to chemicals in the brain disproves these arguments

but since god is apparently in another dimension its not as simple as the car argument and since thats the case we cannot disprove it because we dont have access to this supposed other dimension

Not true.

Fermat's Last Theorem wasn't proved (until recently), but that certainly didn't mean it couldn't have been disproved prior to that.

------------------------

@ANDRE - It is not true that the burden of proof always rests on the person making the positive claim. Going back to my example of Fermat, he claimed that there is no whole number such that X^n + Y^n = Z^n where n > 2. He was making a negative claim, but had the burden of proof to demonstrate this. In math and philosophy, you'll find that you often come across proving negatives.

It cannot be disproved but we can prove how illogical the belief is because of the evidence that we have to prove the argument against it.

Until something is proven, with evidence, to be true, it is not reasonable to accept it.

Further, the Burden Of Proof always rests on the positive claimant.

"Is this sound logic?"

Not particularly. That would be an excuse to make up anything you want and then insist that it is true because it can't be disproved.

Who cannot be disproved? Goblins? The Honey Monster?

I disagree. It's one of those statements that sounds logical, but is just verbal manipulation. Is anti-gravity true or false? As yet no-one has 'proved' anti-gravity. We could easily say that because no one has proved there IS anti-gravity, they have proved there is NO anti-gravity.

No, that's logically flawed. If something has been proven, how can it be disproven?