The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[GrandizerII]

You could knock off the ad hominems, couldn'tcha? Atheists were happy to claim him as long as he professed Atheism. Yet, as soon he professes God, soon they'll attack him on every possible specious pretext, say he didn't know what he was doing etc. "However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe,[11] shocking colleagues and fellow atheists.[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew Christians care about advancing the Temporal and Spiritual Happiness of Men, and Women. Nothing corrupt about that at all, except in the minds of Anti-Religious Atheists. We don't debate just to have a good time or anything. We debate and discuss these weighty matters of God's Creation and Design, of Objective Morality, Christ's Resurrection, and Personal Religious Experience, because things of such great value are at stake.

Doesn't matter. He died rejecting Christ. He made it very clear he was a deist and not a Christian. The deist God and the Christian God are only superficially alike. At the core, there are a lot of dissimilarities between the two.

And no, he clearly said in his interview with Habermas that he didn't believe the Resurrection was a historical fact. This is what he actually said:

HABERMAS: You and I have had three dialogues on the resurrection of
Jesus. Are you any closer to thinking that the resurrection could have been a
historical fact?
FLEW: No, I don't think so. The evidence for the resurrection is better
than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different
in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence
of most other supposedly miraculous events. But you must remember that I
approached it after considerable reading of reports of psychical research and
its criticisms. This showed me how quickly evidence of remarkable and sup-
posedly miraculous events can be discredited.
What the psychical researcher looks for is evidence from witnesses, of
the supposedly paranormal events, recorded as soon as possible after their
occurrence. What we do not have is evidence from anyone who was in
Jerusalem at the time, who witnessed one of the allegedly miraculous events,
and recorded his or her testimony immediately after the occurrence of that
allegedly miraculous event. In the 1950s and 1960s I heard several sugges-
tions from hard-bitten young Australian and American philosophers of con-
ceivable miracles the actual occurrence of which, it was contended, no one
could have overlooked or denied. Why, they asked, if God wanted to be rec-
ognized and worshipped, did God not produce a miracle of this unignorable
and undeniable kind?
HABERMAS: So you think that, for a miracle, the evidence for Jesus' res-
urrection is better than other miracle claims?
FLEW: Oh yes, I think so. It's much better, for example, than that for
most if not all of the, so to speak, run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic miracles.
On this see, for instance, D. J. West.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/v...s_fac_pubs