And your point is...what, exactly? The purpose of the book, ostenstibly, is to show how Antony Flew used rational thinking and reasoning to come to the conclusion that there is a God. He changed his mind: he went from atheism (no god) to deism (god).
The point is, *theists* are pointing to this book as some sort of amazing shining beacon. Deism is more like Atheism than it is like Christianity. If you don't believe me, make a list of core Christian beliefs. Deists will only agree with you on ONE point (creation of the universe). Atheists and Deists however will agree on dozens of points (god doesn't answer prayers, jesus is not the son of god, jesus did not die for our sins, there is no original sin, there is no evidence of heaven, there is no evidence of hell, etc; ). See what I am getting at?
This is my problem. The book is heavily heavily marketed to THEISTS. There is a section at the end where a different author tries to support theism. But Flew could not agree with this! Flew is a Deist. So why would a theist care that an atheist became a deist? It makes no sense that theists, Christians particularly, are trying to support this book. If anything Christians should be annoyed that the publisher is trying to trick them. There are plenty of full conversion stories out there they could read instead of this sneaky baloney.
Yes of course we see what you are getting at. But you are missing the point entirely. Your laundry list of beliefs ignores the fact that one of them is so much more important than the others. The big #1 question is, is there a God (rational, all-powerful being) of any kind? Once you agree on that, you can go on to discuss questions of how that God might or might not interact with the universe He has created. And the whole point, which you are missing, is that Flew has changed his mind on THAT point. After agreement on that, there's time to discuss all the others - and on THAT point, Flew and Christians are over against the atheists.
Rather curiously, Flew has fulminated in public that Dawkins does not give a definition of deism in The God Delusion (although it does), while 'There is a God' has absolutely no discussion of deism at all.
Flew is now a deist, and there is no discussion of deism in Flew's book? Varghese and Hostetler should be ashamed of what they have done to Flew.
If Dawkins ever becomes a Muslim, do you think he would write a book about his journey to Islam, and never discuss what Islam is in the book? That would beggar belief.
And yet Christians say with a straight face that 'There is a God' is by Flew, although Flew is a deist and the book does not discuss deism and how it differs from theism.
It is disgusting what Christians have done to Flew.
I only hope that history ignores this book by 'Flew' when judging his reputation as a philosopher. It would be a travesty if Flew is judged by this book.
"Notice here are no discussions about the content of the book"
Are you insane? We were discussing Flew changing his mind. The freaking title talks about him changing his mind. That's close enough don't you think, discussing exactly what the book title references? I also noted how Flew is a Deist (or rather was, since he's dead now), and how he makes no argument for Theism in the book. All theists, including Christians should be insulted that this book is marketed to them. Flew has less in common with you belief-wise than a Muslim or a Hindu, or of any other religion you can think of.