Well damn. It seems like I have to put in a little bit of effort to expose your retardation.
Alright, disprove the existence of dragons.
Nobody has seen them? I have.
There are no pictures? They don't show up on pictures.
There are no traces of them? They are too complex to leave traces.
Just because you can't disprove the existence of dragons, doesn't mean that they are real. Of course, we do not know 100% if they are real or not, but we can safely assume that dragons do not exist because of lack of evidence (and other VERY obvious reasons).
Why isn't it the same with God? There is seemingly an endless number of religions, each with its different version of "God", they all lack evidence. A scientist would not be taken seriously if they were to use "You can't DISPROVE that!" as an argument.
"God" has a lot of times been described as an omniscient (It is impossible for any being to be omniscient and if you aren't stupid you know this), omnipotent (also impossible) and omnipresent (still impossible) being. Now you could say "oh well God is just too complex for us to understand so it might be possible" but that isn't an argument. Well, it kind of is an argument but a stupid one.