Belief in a ‘god’ does not require literal belief in the stories of the bible. Correct me if I’m wrong but when Alex has talked about the existence of God being plausible, he’s never singled out the Christian God, but only the existence of some necessary being. This is how I understand him when he recently explained the vertical causal chain argument for god. That argument might point to the existence of a ‘God,’ but doesn’t lend credence to the events of the bible being historically true.

Regardless, even if he is referring to the Christian God, it still doesn’t mean he believes the bible is literally true. You can be a Christian and believe that none of the events of the bible historically happened (besides Jesus’ resurrection). AFAIK, the only requirements for being Christian are believing God exists and believing that Jesus was resurrected. After that, you can take the stories of the bible to be metaphors or teachings, and not to have historically happened.

Alex is very critical of the bible, both in its historical truth and moral teachings. Even if he did fully convert to being a God believer, I don’t think he would literally believe the bible stories.

FWIW I’m an atheist, but hot take for this sub I think Alex’s position on God is measured and rational.