sylveon

God cannot be refuted nor confirmed.

I'd say that depends on the specific god claim. Some of them are unfalsifiable, but others could be demonstrated to be true or false. I feel like your examples support this, because you could easily demonstrate the existence of a unicorn or a dragon by finding and capturing one. Also, the fact that they're fairly large land animals and there's zero confirmed sightings, no photographs and no captures is pretty good evidence that they likely don't actually exist (on Earth).

Generally, if the claim is that the god intervenes in some form, it should be testable. You could, for example, test whether prayer works. But if it's more of a deist god that supposedly just created the universe and then fucked off then that's probably not testable. But I don't think any of the most popular religions propose such a god and it also wouldn't really have any implications for human lives, so the claim isn't as interesting to me.

I think only logical fallacies might never exist e.g an all-powerful creator immediately runs into the logical problem of “can god create a rock that it itself cannot lift?”.

I don't like this argument very much because defining omnipotence in a way that includes logical impossibilities doesn't really make sense to me to begin with. I think it's more reasonable to define omnipotence as "can do anything that's possible".

I do however agree with the sentiment that we can't know anything with absolute certainty.

I love Scala so much. Whenever I'm using a different language, which is most of the time since I primarily use C# and TypeScript at work, I feel like I'm missing features and I have to work around the language by writing overly complicated code to do what I want.