Apparently the "rules of evidence" dont stand for anything in the original title of this thread..
It stands on the testimony of ....real people. You can either accept or reject such testimony.
Excellent point Bartikus.
Pretending that there is only one type of evidence is rather disingenuous.
Scientific evidence and legal evidence, for instance, have different standards of proof.
Science relies on observation, repetition, falsification, etc.
By this standard of evidence it would be difficult , if not impossible , to 'prove' that Charlemagne had lived.
His life cannot be repeated, nor observed. We cannot examine nor question witnesses who have given testimony of what he did.
His existence cannot be falsified. (Try to prove a negative. It's not often done.)
But we don't only rely on 'scientific evidence' in dealing with historical matters. Science may be able to provide supplementary or circumstantial evidence that tends to support or not, as the case may be.
But sweeping generalizations regarding evidence, or the lack thereof, are humorous diversions nonetheless.
FM , as a man of science, should be more careful to qualify his statements regarding evidence. But don't look for it soon.
Those who ask for 'evidence of God' often don't understand what they are asking for.
The notion of requiring 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is more than a bit absurd.