You are right that it is a valid assumtion that god's existance has not been discovered if you mean that substancial solid evidence has not been found for the support of that idea.

What i meant by you can't attempt to disprove it. I kind of meant you just cant test it either way. Sciene is about testing. my apologies for not having things come down from the brain to the typings. With the availability of resources around us, we cannot make a scientific inquiry about god. It doesnt work that way, at least yet

The theory of relativity is not proven. NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN, but a shitload of math and other postulations have supported it without much if anything to disprove it. I mean there is a scientist forgive the lack of source but you're welcoem to look it up to prove me right or wrong who theorizes that the speed of light isn't constant. That it actually slows down when nearing a black hole. There is math behind that but its not nearly strong enough to debunk relativity. The point is that you can at least try to come up with evidence that things work another way. The same with anti-matter. It is heavily based in math too. They are ideas supported with evidence and opposing arguements for each of these fall short by bunches. With these you can try to do the math or set up an experiment to prove it wong. If you set up an experiment to try to disprove it, if the attempt to smash the idea keeps failing the more support the idea gets. You cannot set up an experiment to find out if God exists. maybe that clarifies, maybe it doesnt. Maybe in the future we'll have some random form of advances that helps us to detect a diety, but for now we cannot go out and search for evidence with the means we have.

Personally i'm not against the idea that there's a God, just so I dont come off with that bias. That's why religion is about faith. If you were stuck on proof then it wouldnt really be faith.