What makes the Bible's claims more likely to be true than Homer's claim the Muses inspired his poetry- since neither are falsifiable?

1. There were various claims about the Muses, some of which were falsifiable. For example, some believed that the Muses were the only sources of artistic works, and without their help, art could not be produced. Clearly people who did not invoke the Muses also produced art.

2. If a religion makes note of its need of human worship, and no humans continue to worship, I would view that as evidence of its doctrinal error, at best, and outright falsity at worst. Given that no (or very, very few) humans have worshipped the Greek or Roman gods for hundreds of years (a few have started recently), and no humans have made the demanded sacrifices (nothing has gone awry), it can safely be assumed that the Greek religion was flawed. I think of these religions as precursors which fed into eventually creating a more perfect religion.

3. The muses did inspire his poetry, as he wrote Greek mythology, therefore the concept of the muses and idea of the muses inspired him. However, if you are being literal, then it is highly unlikely that nine Greek goddesses came to Homer and told him what to write in the Illiad.

On the other hand, the Bible, in its interpretation, has not had the same strikes against it. While parts of the Bible are interpreted differently today than in the past, the Bible can still be viewed as wholly un-contradicted. For example, it is well-known and has been in the past, that the first creation story is allegorical and is an adaptation of the Babylonian creation. It can also be viewed as an allegory for the human lifespan; the Garden of Eden is childhood, the forbidden fruit is sex (often puberty was viewed as the beginning of adulthood in ancient societies), and after they had achieved knowledge of right and wrong (loss of innocence), they then were responsible for their own actions and had to take care of themselves and eventually die (thus the expulsion from the Garden of Eden). So, while yes, you could consider this claim falsifiable, it has only recently been regarded as literal by some believers. Taken in its intended context (to create a unique culture and separate identity for the Jews in exile), it is not falsifiable, as it is not a literal story. By the way, the interpretation for the Bible (not for the Torah) must take into account Jesus teachings and perspective, as He is the definitive source of all knowledge of God.

God inspired the Holy Bible. God had no hand in Homer's work. That was all just Homer! God is not a liar. All men are.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

of all the people, places, and events that the Bible describes, about 600 of them haev been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be true. For example, they found some documents signed by King Hezekiah just a few months ago -- a person who was once though to be imaginary is now PROVEN to have existed. SCORE: Bible +1

Of all the people, events, and places from Homer, NONE OF THEM have been scientifically proven to be true.

So, if you ask ":Which one is more likely to be true", the score is Bible: 600 ; Homer: 0.

tHERFORE, WHILE THE whOLE BIBLE I=HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, WE can SAY TEHT tHE bIBLE is more likelzy TO BE TRUIE THAN hOMER.

Proper examination of the Bible proves it impossible to be the work of man.

How do you scientifically calculate likelihood of God? You're simply interjecting your own prejudices and calling it "likely".

that makes Atheism non the more any truer

how can you prove Atheism is true and all other beliefs false?

Nothing.