What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Relax. Evidence is not proof. And, no one care if the atheist doesn't believe in God; but there is evidence. lots of evidence. Oh, was it mentioned that humongous amounts of evidence is not proof of God?

Flew in his book cited three main arguments for his change of mind: one is, cell complexity especially DNA - “intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” Page 75. He also said “follow the evidence wherever it leads”. Intelligence being involved in DNA would be a more plausible hypothesis then an undirected, purposeless, brute chemistry hypothesis. Let each individual decide for themselves, using their God-given intellect.

Therefore Jesus.

Yeah, except Flew repeatedly and vociferously denied the Christian God, and affirmed that he was a Deist (or perhaps pantheist, since he claims to admire the Einsteinian version of God, which was pantheism). There's also a lot of controversy about that book, because of the religiousity of the ghost-writer/co-author who wrote on behalf of the declining Flew, one which contains a lot of Americanisms in the use of language, though Flew does seems to have supported the concepts behind the book, right to the end. Once Christians began to cite Flew as an example of someone "leaving" atheism, though, he did reaffirm that his idea of God was more along the lines of Einstein, who openly mocked the idea of a personal God.

Flew died of dementia, which is a slow, degenerative neurological condition that often ends up with the person being easily manipulable and suggestible, poorly-aware of their sense of self... a path which unfortinately I know well; I just watched my favorite and now recently-deceased grandmother go through it for a decade before succumbing late last year. For roughly the last five years of her life, her entire personality changed, except in brief flashes, and long before that she began to show signs of irrational thinking.

Christians should be very, very careful when they use Antony Flew as a reference for their ideas. Even if we presume he was completely in right mind during this whole process of deconversion and writing of the new books/articles (and in no way under the influence of religionists who were happy to "help" him write and publish, and of course to profit off the controversy and book sales caused by his conversion), which is a dubious proposition, he still does not agree with the Christian view of religion in even the slightest way. He is specifically quoted on numerous occasions that he believes only in a non-active, non-interventionist deity, except perhaps in the case of causing life to emerge from random biochemistry.

At best, he supports our Snowflake twins' position.