GILGAMESH DOES NOT EXIST

prove me wrong

The lack of existence of a universally spanning entity should have abundant EVIDENCE.  But, like I've explained in so many other of these threads started by pseudo-intellectual twenty-something ACADEMICS, there isn't any evidence, so we can easily refute such ludicrous claims.  YOU have to provide the evidence for your ridiculous assertions.

So you believe in Gilgamesh?

yes is the one and true good
and ishtar is the wife and creator of all things

>>2

How do you know that Gilgamesh would produce any evidence at all? What if he's invisible, heatless, formless, "outside of time" (whatever that means), etc.- all the other excuses that theists make up to ensure that their god is safe from scientific probing? I realize it's just a huge cop-out, but the fact is that such an entity can NEVER be proven or disproven (even probabilistically).

Gilgamesh is erasing the evidence now as we speak, to fool us all.

http://www.totse.com/community/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=151

4CHAN TAKES IT LIKE A LITTLE WHORE

SECOND_EXISTENCE AT TOTSE

TOTSE ARMY IS COMING TO GET YOU
TOTSE ARMY IS COMING TO GET YOU
TOTSE ARMY IS COMING TO GET YOU
TOTSE ARMY IS COMING TO GET YOU
TOTSE ARMY IS COMING TO GET YOU

>>5
There being no difference between one and the other, Occam's Razor says you're being an idiot and that there really isn't a Gilgamesh.  The more you have to contrive special circumstances to arrive at an answer, the more you've just constructed an EXCUSE to avoid the real answer.

At any rate, please cite evidence for ANY of the individual properties you noted:  invisible, heatless, formless, "outside of time", etc.  Isn't it curious that you have to ascribe many NEW and heretofore unseen properties to this entity to explain its lack of presence?  Again, with too many lame excuses laid out to explain something (which isn't even event-driven, either!), eventually your rational mind has to admit you're being a fool and are only avoiding the most apparent answer.  If your rational mind can't make that admission, then those of us with rational minds will just isolate you from sane debates since you will be definably INSANE.

So, we're back to the hard nugget of the problem:  100s of millions of people believe in the fucking Easter Bunny, but in a much worse way since we know that at least bunnies exist ... and that's NOT SO with divinity.  There's a 100% lack of any evidence whatsoever for divinity.  There's just no evidence ... AND THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF IT.

>>8
Pretty good, imposter.  Pretty GOOD

>>8

Not bad.

>>8

"There being no difference between one and the other, Occam's Razor says you're being an idiot and that there really isn't a Gilgamesh."

Wrong. Occam's Razor says that Gilgamesh is superfluous.

"At any rate, please cite evidence for ANY of the individual properties you noted:  invisible, heatless, formless, "outside of time", etc."

It is by definition impossible to find evidence for a being which is absolutely unobservable. That was the whole point. Your argument assumes that Gilgamesh, if he existed, would produce an enormous amount of evidence- but a believer in Gilgamesh may define him such that he produces absolutely none, and then science has nothing to say on the subject except that postulating the existence of such a being tells us nothing about the universe, and is therefore (at best) useless mental masturbation.

Gilgamesh is the simplest explanation of all questions, therefore it is true.

>>8
Religious threads on /sci/ are INsane.

>>1
Baby Jesus cries every time a religious thread appears on /sci/.

>>11
If you're going to corner yourself by relying on the "absolute unobservability" of the entity in question, then you achieve EPIC FAIL by admitting that you have NO BASIS for such a belief since you didn't detect the entity in the first place.

You may as well just subscribe to the belief that the Pokemon characters are real.

>>14

They aren't? So you're saying this Pikachu right here, sucking my dick, isn't real?

pika pika chu chu

things don't exist if you don't know about them, don'tchaknow

>>14

"..admitting that you have NO BASIS for such a belief since you didn't detect the entity in the first place."

Why yes, that was my entire point. You claim that if there is no evidence for something, then it doesn't exist period. I claim that if there is no evidence for something, there are two options:

1) It doesn't exist
2) We can't determine whether or not it exists

and which option we choose depends both on whether the "something" in question admits of verifiability, and whether the evidence it ought to leave is detectable at this time (e.g., subatomic particles existed even before we could detect them).

If we choose option two, we ignore the proposition as useless until such time as evidence presents itself- except that cases like the deist "watchmaker" God, who creates the universe and then leaves it alone, make no predictions and will never be useful for explaining anything- thus we can safely ignore such ideas forever. But that doesn't mean we can just assert that such things do not exist.

>>18
you should probably just give up now.  you're entirely correct, but redcream is a dumbass.

According to Redcream's logic, Germs didn't exist until the microscope was invented. An other galaxies didn't exist until we made telescopes powerful enough to detect them.

Redcream is an utter "naive realist." Atheism is the exact same belief system as theism, rotated 180 degrees. It still relies on belief, making it absolutely unscientific, making redcream a walking (or at least typing) contradiction.

>>18
You're avoiding the point, so I'll correct your statement:

You claim that if there is no evidence for something, and it should be creating huge amounts of evidence, then it doesn't exist period.

Obviously, this is TRUE.

>>19
Poster >>18 is not correct since, as usual, he made a critical omission.

>>20
We saw plenty of microbial action without a microscope.  Ever hear of rotting?  This is in extreme contrast to the action of Gilgamesh, which is ZERO.  There is simply ZERO evidence, either direct or indirect.  Once again, one of you twentysomething fuckwads can't even make a basic argument without a real flaw like that.  There are reasons for that, of course; one, your education is faulty; and two, I'm fucking right and there are too many fucking gayfailers who can't admit to the godlessness of the universe.

The fact remains that evidence is still required for assertions, and the more outrageous the assertion (like "there's a giant alien space monster in the sky watching my behavior" is extremely outrageous), the stronger the need for evidence.  Luckily, we have a set of bullshit-cutting tools available to us.  One of these tools says:

"Something so fucking large and pervasive must have produced evidence around here somewhere, and it shouldn't be hard to find."

After 1000s of years of searching for such evidence, it's time for you gayfailers to submit to the rational conclusion that there is no Gilgamesh, Jahweh, or incorporeal dragons.

Good God he's like a brick wall.

>>21
>>I'm fucking right and there are too many fucking gayfailers who can't admit to the godlessness of the universe.

Most of the people arguing against you are (rather blatantly) agnostic and are arguing that your atheism is the same belief system as theism: They both rely on faith. To BELIEVE either way on the subject is absolutely unscientific.

Rotting didn't appear microbial UNTIL the microscope was used. Before then it was just accepted that dead things archetypally wither away by a higher power without a god-sent life force or a soul to keep it alive.

Of course, now we know that isn't how the world works, but it was accepted as people used the exact "logic" you are using now to confirm that nothing existed outside of what we could detect. Since then we have detected germs and other galaxies and possibly even other universes. Are you really naive enough to BELIEVE that everything we can't detect with modern technology doesn't exist?

>>Most of the people arguing against you are (rather blatantly) agnostic and are arguing that your atheism is the same belief system as theism: They both rely on faith. To BELIEVE either way on the subject is absolutely unscientific.

That said, fence-sitters are usually flamed for taking no stand, because to the atheists and theists there are only 2 choices: There is a superior being as exactly described in the bible, or there is no superior being at all.

>>24
To add on, hence any argument to prove that one's side is correct is usually by disproving the other side.
Atheist: there is no concrete proof of God, hence god doesn't exist.
Theist: there is no concrete proof of evolution, hence god exist.

>>22

I'm convinced that RedCream is actually a hardcore theist doing an elaborate parody of fanatical atheists.

All it takes is a larger particle accelerator to detect divine entities.  Give the physicists moar funding.

>>27
finally someone who makes sense.

>>26
Nope.  I'm more than tired of letting this religishit continue to destroy all the logical thinking in my society.  I've been quiet about their stupidity for too long, and have submitted to politeness while the holy rollers infested all institutions.  Due to the vast conspiracy of such a silence, when faced with rational analysis of the situation, it only appears like fanaticism to you.  That pain you're feeling is only rationality returning to the public forum.  The age of polite acceptance of complete nonsense, IS OVER.

The same goes for all that Jew crap, too.  The Zionists control the US Congress and I'm not going to tiptoe around the issue any further.  The religifucks and Israeltards are clearly getting us into World War Three and it's long past time to expose their irrational bullshit.

>>29

Comedy gold. Your scathing impression of a bitter, fundie atheist conspiracy nut is right on target. *tips hat*

>>29
>I'm more than tired of letting this religishit continue to destroy all the logical thinking in my society.

That's why you're so golden: we are not saying you are wrong in the name of religion. We are saying you are wrong in the name of logic. No one arguing with you here is religious.

>>29

And so you complain to 4chan?

>>30
Donations accepted.

>>31
Bull-fucking-shit.  Like too many people you whine in the cold and dark of a godless universe.  Stop lying to yourself first, and then stop lying to us second.

>>32
No, it's not such much of a complaint, as it is rising to the challenge when some pro-divinity bullshit appears in a public forum.  I'm more than willing to discuss other topics, but this religicrap gets my fucking goat.

>>33
Like too many people you whine in the cold and dark of an indeterminate universe.  Stop lying to yourself first, and then read a book on logic.

gb2/newpol/  /sci/ doesn't like fundies of any kind.

>>33
"Bull-fucking-shit.  Like too many people you whine in the cold and dark of a godless universe.  Stop lying to yourself first, and then stop lying to us second."

Are you that fucking stupid? I have said countless times that I and the people arguing with you have stated that we DON'T believe in god, yet you keep building your strawmen as if the people arguing with you are religious fundamentalists. It seems that you are too ignorant to determine the difference between theism and agnosticism.

- There is no evidence of god, so I don't believe in one.
- There is no evidence that there is no god, so I don't believe there is not one.

Are you really that dense to be inable to understand that this is all we (or at least I) have been saying? No one is whining in a godless universe. In fact you're the only one here whining at all. I haven't accepted the possibility of there being a god any more than you have. Making the speculative leap of faith of concluding there is no god from the lack of evidence is just as much a speculative leap of faith as concluding that there is a god in spite of the lack of evidence

The difference is that you are taking the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence, which is unscientific, which is why are are contradictory to what you claim to be arguing for.

This is why you're so fucking retarded.

>>35
You too conveniently avoid the truth that such a huge and pervasive entity like a divinity should leave evidence all over the fucking place.  The truth of that cannot be sanely denied.  Since you do you are either insane or are the godwhiner I previously identified.  CHOOSE.

I see godcowards like you fuckos all the time.  Oh, yeh, leaving your options open, eh?  What a lame excuse for an intellect.

>such a huge and pervasive entity like a divinity should leave evidence all over the fucking place.

why? If there is any divinity at all it couldn't interfere with the universe at all or it would make laws of physics non-constants. Science = determinism, and if god interferes, scientific determinism is no longer a constant, and the laws of physics are no longer laws. If there is a god there is basically no way he could intervene (see: give evidence of his presence) after the initialization. Therefore, if there is a god, it would only have the freedom to choose the initial state of the universe at the point of the big bang, and then his hands are off. If there is a god at all there is very, very little chance of such an entity leaving evidence.

lol at you still calling agnostics godcowards. LOL at you failing at science. LOL at you being afraid of uncertainty the way you say agnostics are afraid of a godless universe. LOL at you thinking that making such speculative beliefs reflect "intellect."

>>37 rubbish. wouldn't you call creating everything in the universe an interference?
"it would make laws of physics non-constants."
So what? God made physics god can change physics.
Is there some law that states that the laws of physics can never change? I think not. The only thing that makes us think they cannot  change is that we have not observed them changing.

>>38
>"wouldn't you call creating everything in the universe an interference?"

I said interference "after the initialization."

>"Is there some law that states that the laws of physics can never change? I think not."

If the laws changed they wouldn't be laws.

>"The only thing that makes us think they cannot  change is that we have not observed them changing."

Either that or it hasn't changed anything. Scientific determination says there is only one possible future. If any small thing is manipulated in the universe, the rest of the universe would have to be manipulated to accommodate it, and even the smallest manipulation would have unimaginable impacts (chaos theory). Basically, it would be impossible to manipulate a little without manipulating a lot, which humans would notice.

>>40 god is all powerful, if he wants to change one bit of reality he can. >pop< he appears, he is in your bedroom. Did it change a lot? not really.

"If the laws changed they wouldn't be laws." ok I can agree they wouldn't be laws then, they'd be something else. Still doesn't mean it can't happen.