I see that you are simply not understanding what I am writing either because I was unclear or because you do not wish to understand. I cannot figure out why you keep going back to one person while I keep going back to a multitude of people. I give up.
Either way, just if something is not 100% provable does not mean it boils down to belief. Case in point, a jury in the US decides whether or not the accused is proven a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not 100% proven but is certainly more than a belief.
Ah, I think I found our disconnect. You're coming from a point of
assuming the 600,000 is accurate and an actual occurence. I'm coming from a point of thinking it's highly unlikely
from a logical perspective, but we have belief in it regardless.
Let me give you two scenarios and tell me which one you'd think is more like without any outside belief or influences.
1) Something magically preposterous happened 3000 years ago, and even though there is no verifiable or corroborative recording of it, it's been passed down in perfect descent for well over 100 generations.
2) A charismatic gentleman with a small following offers answers to questions that had been unanswered until that point. His group of followers grows and the stories he tells spread. His seemingly faultless understanding of the world leads people to follow him unquestioningly. One such story is about a magically preposterous event in the past, that gives meaning to life. The story gets passed on through generations with embellishment along the way, until it's current form which has been told for a millennium.
Now, which one is more likely,
without taking any outside beliefs into account? One has certainly happened. It's verifiable and there's corroborative evidence. Heck, it's probably provable that it's happened more than once.
Have you ever played telephone as a child?
Now, we believe 1 because it's what we're taught, and we
choose to believe it. But some of us don't delude ourselves into believing it's provable beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of the evidence.