[Dimensio]

Honestly, I'm not familiar at all with the 'famous' Antony Flew's works. I hadn't heard of him until this story (which has been exposed as flawed in its statements) broke yesterday. As such, I wouldn't really be in a position to assess his intelligence even if such a thing were my field of expertise.

I simply am able to recognize the fallacy of appeal to incredulity when I see it. Looking at the world and saying "there must be a God" is not a logical argument.

[BRL]

Looking at the world and saying "there must be a God" is not a logical argument.

I remember from geometry that there are things called axioms that are to be accepted as fact even though they cannot be proved.

In geometry axioms are accepted and mathematical theories are built upon those axioms.

In philosophy , I suppose, no axioms are accepte. However, as a matter of fact, the axiom "There is a God" has been accepted in all of the workings of Western Society (Western society has built upon that axiom in many ways in western law). Our whole society was built upon that premise. Our legal system is built upon that premise. We are so far removed from the makings of our society that "intellectuals" can tell us all how stupid we are as they enjoy all the fruits of everything they are too smart to believe.

Of course, Islamic society has also built a society based upon "There is a God" too. But they did not project very well beyond that. They used the wrong book to interpret what to do with that axiom.