Some persons don't believe in the existence of some legendary or religious persons, like Epona, Caín or others. But in some situations we have the same evidences of their existing that some evidences of the existing of some ancient kings, warriors or other "important" persons. I mean, maybe X person can believe that king arthur really existed, and he, according to a legend, is at this moment under his natal country, waiting in a secret cave until his people need him, and then he will rise up to the surface to help them in a war or other things... and another person can think that this history is really stupid.The persons who believe in this history have their "proves" (not empirical proves, of course), but they have some books that explains it and give them "good" arguments. But... we can have the same "proves" (texts or physical things) to demostrate that a famous persons existed (persons like Jaume I, or Alejandro Magno). We have texts and maybe some physicall "proves" to demostrate that they existed, but no more. However, we believe it...
But it can be that the existence of these "real" important persons was really a lie, an elaborated plot or a meticulous conspiracy? It's curious...
Maybe I'm too sceptic, but I'm not refering to the content or logic of these proves, I'm refering at the types of proves.
