>Now you PROVE he didnt exist. The fact is, there is no proof
>either way because many of these stories are so metaphorical,
>garbled and messed up over the course of time as to be
>basically fictional anyway...

Scientists don't attempt to disprove hypotheses; they disprove theories. A hypothesis doesn't become a theory until its author backs it up with some coherent evidence. There is none, and so there is no need to prove he didn't exist to scoff at any hypothesis that he did.