Circular Arguments.

I sense we're going round in circles. Here's my view of the dialogue stripped of the noise.

The Believers claim the Torah is divine.

• The Skeptics claim the Torah makes *extraordinary claims that are unbelievable.
• The Believers counter with the Kuzari or variants thereof.
• The Skeptics counter with an explanation of how myths are created and provide specific examples of myth-making. This is backed up by hypotheses of how the Torah came to be accepted by the Jews. One example is DH.
• The Believers counter that in the case of the Torah, these examples of myth making and DH are far-fetched. Therefore you must accept the alternate, that the Torah is divine.

So what are we left with? The posited explanation of DH and myth-making is certainly possible and has no proofs against it. It is certainly more reasonable than that of the extraordinary claims of the Torah.

To me it's black and white Checkmate. The onus of proof is on those making the extraordinary claims.

Please don't debate me on the comment below, we've been though all that. Just address the four checkpoints above.

*Extraordinary claims - Miracles, Prophecy, revelation, anachronisms, none of which are supported by external evidence and some of which is contradicted by Modern Science and History. There are answers for almost everything, some good, some poor.