>>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.