What do you mean the "literary origins of the Bible?" If you're asking whether I'm aware when and by whom the given books were written, my answer is "yes," roughly, although there is some academic dispute on the matter so in some ways, we can't be totally sure.
That really has nothing to do with there being one God. God never claims authorship of the Bible. The Bible is the word of God, written by man. Now let's address some of your points individually.
"The first four books came from a distinctly different time period than Deuteronomy." - So? The bible was written by people over a long time span, not just Deuteronomy.
"Deuteronomy retcons away some of the more physical aspects of god from the previous books, which depict god as frequently appearing as physical manifestations and eating food. The former depiction eschews most of the omnipotence, too." - So? Why can't God appear in physical form? Why can't a god who appears in physical form be omnipotent? That doesn't logically follow.
"Meanwhile, the new testament depictions are generally based on Zeus." - In what way? Does Jesus live on mount Olympus and throw lightning bolts at people?
"The elements of judgment based on morality in life and consignment to an afterlife are taken straight from Greek myth, not from the old testament." - I disagree, but feel free to prove it.
"Not to mention the addition of the messiah being a physical descendant of a god, which is completely antithetical to the old testament stories about the messiah." - Again, prove it.
"Modern views of god, meanwhile, both in Christianity and Islam, assert that their god is the only one in existence, while the old testament explicitly mentions other gods, some even by name." - It doesn't say that other gods exist, it recognizes that other people believe in other gods, and goes out of its way to show that those gods do not exist. Deuteronomy 6:4..... "hear o israel, the lord our god, the lord is one."
So you've made a lot of claims there, and I don't agree with a single one of them. Go ahead and substantiate them. And make sure to show why all of that means there are several gods represented in the Bible, and ultimately, why you've proven that the Biblical God does not exist.... which was your original claim.
But to answer your question.... we have a burden of evidence standard because somebody has to win in a court of law. It's a tiebreaker. Nobody has to win here.
By the way, just because someone loses a case in court doesn't mean they are guilty by virtue of logic, it means the prosecution met the burden of proof as defined by American law and as interpreted, subjectively, by a human judge or jury.
Likewise, the burden of evidence lies with those making the claim that a thing exists/happens so that bad ideas don't so easily get swallowed as fact. This is true in all cases where a claim that a thing is real is made: criminal charges, scientific hypotheses and, yes, even religious claims.
I know you don't agree with them. Fortunately for the rest of us, that doesn't matter. Nor will you rise to my challenge and concisely define a god. "The god of the bible" is not a single concise character. I can show all manner of contradictions that make it nonsense, but I don't want this to devolve into just a lot of you saying that my arguments don't count because they don't square with your view of god. It already devolved into that over the bible.So you've made a lot of claims there, and I don't agree with a single one of them. Go ahead and substantiate them. And make sure to show why all of that means there are several gods represented in the Bible, and ultimately, why you've proven that the Biblical God does not exist.... which was your original claim.
Pick a myth. Describe it clearly. I'll trash it.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Actually in many European countries, the standard is "guilty until proven innocent." Still, it's not "fantastically easy" to put innocent people in jail.
However, the metaphor is a bad one. You can't compare a court of law, in which at the end of the day, the judge/jury have to make a "best call," to a debate dealing in absolute logic.
You might believe OJ Simpson was not guilty, but you can never prove he was not guilty. Likewise, you can never prove that he was guilty. The best you can do is meet a given threshold of evidence, defined by local law, and interpreted/judged subjectively by a jury/judge.