>>93
>>94 addresses most of my complaints, but I would like to add a little more.
1) We don't know that <insert divine entity> necessarily has to provide a preponderous amount of evidence. You have so far claimed either a) all the divine entities the religifags believe in do provide a preponderous amount of evidence (which is generally true) or b) if such a divine entity doesn't provide evidence, then it's meaningless (you made an amusing example of pulling gilgamesh/something else out of your ass and having it sit on our shoulders, never to allow notice of its existence). This is a moot point, as you're unwilling to discuss this any further.
2) I'm going to modify this by asking
Are you absolutely sure we NECESSARILY have to have evidence for something that generates a preponderous amount of evidence?
Before you answer, consider neutrinos. They were predicted ~1930, and there were supposed to be tons of them. In fact, we now know that there are some 5x10^13 passing through us every second (good enough for your "preponderous amount of evidence"?). They could not be detected, and indeed, after a number of years, the theory was dumped. What if all the experimenters searching for them were just so astronomically unlucky that they never encountered a single neutrino in the duration of their experiments? It's unlikely, but it can't be discounted. This reasoning, though not inherently false, is unproductive, and hence the theory was set aside (you would be screaming that neutrinos don't exist). Later, in 1956, they finally found evidence for these things, and the theory was resurrected.
tl;dr:
My point? If you fail to find evidence, the most you can say is that you can't prove its existence. It does NOT disprove existence, because it is still possible for people in the future to find evidence. If you can prove that nobody in the future can EVER find evidence for <insert divine entity>, then you win. Else, no further conclusions can be drawn, and <insert divine entity> will remain unlikely, but possible.