What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[jenny1972]

Sorry, but Flew did not believe in any god described in religious texts, like the Bible. 

The most he was convinced of, is a deist god. Nothing more.

There is a good deal of controversy over Flew's mental state when the conversion took place.  See, for example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightath...tony-flew/

I think this article gets to a more important point to consider:

And the reasoning by which he arrived at his certainty that God does not exist was never cancelled or reversed by the sloppy arguments of his senility.

And:

Dr Richard Carrier tried to ascertain from Professor Flew himself whether he had really “found God”. Carrier’s detailed account (no longer to be found on the internet – we wonder why) of how Flew claimed he was, but then again was not, converted to belief in a creator-God when certain scientific facts were brought to his attention, makes the whole sorry story plain. Carrier records that the philosopher admitted to finding the subject “too hard” to deal with; that he failed to remember anything about There is a God; that he repeatedly contradicted himself.

http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/th...lzheimers/

The important point is not whether he was senile or not.  The important point is, his arguments for god are simply inadequate.  That is the takeaway for this, regardless of whether he was being manipulated or not.


We all know that there are theists in the world.  That fact makes no difference for whether anyone ought to believe in a god or not.  It is reasoning and evidence that matter, not who believes what.

Anyone who reasons thusly:

This person [insert any name you want] believes in god.
Therefore, everyone should believe in god.

is a moron who reasons fallaciously.

he was in his right mind 10 years ago  , since 2005 he has stated a preference for Aristotelian Deism