>>89
again, you can't read. you're the only person seriously acting like someones trying to prove gilgamesh exists. you keep making this have to do with gilgamesh, so i'm not going to lie and say its completely unrelated. the central argument has continually been that not having evidence does not necessarily imply negation of an existence.
yes, your points demand that people admit whatever god is false, but your points are retarded and illogical. we tell you this again and again, we tell you why they're wrong, and you keep posting the same terrible reasoning and embarassing yourself and several other people. if you weren't completely retarded, you'd understand that our points demand that people admit they're not certain that their god exists either, unless they have some proof we don't know about. again, though, you're too fucking retarded.