view thus far about his theism (an interview with Liberty University Christian apologist Gary Habermas), Flew had this to add:  Habermas: "In your view, then, God hasnʼt done anything about evil."  Flew: No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it....  Habermas: Are you any closer to thinking that the resurrection could have been a historical fact?  Flew: No, I donʼt think so... 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 0000s and 0000s I heard several suggestions from hard-bitten young Australian and American philosophers of conceivable miracles the actual occurrence of which, it was contended, no one could have overlooked or denied. Why, they asked, if God wanted to be recognized and worshipped, did God not produce a miracle of this unignorable and undeniable kind?"... [According to Luke-Acts, the raised Jesusʼ ascension into heaven was only witnessed by the eleven apostles, and even Luke-Acts admits that there was no preaching of "the resurrection" until seven weeks after the crucifixion.]  Habermas: Do you think that there is any chance that you might in the end move from theism to Christianity?  Flew: I think itʼs very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. But, if it did happen, I think it would be in some eccentric fit and doubtfully orthodox form: regular religious practice perhaps but without belief. If I wanted any sort of future life I should become a Jehovahʼs Witness [because at least their paradise involves corporeal persons; and Flew said earlier in the interview: "I think those who want to speak about an afterlife have got to meet the difficulty of formulating a concept of an incorporeal person... it is simply impossible to create a concept of an incorporeal spirit... Swinburne and I had been the only Gifford lecturers to treat the question of a future life for the sixty years past. Even more remarkably, Swinburne in his Gifford Lectures ignored Bishop Butlerʼs decisive observation: ‘Memory may reveal but cannot constitute personal identity.'"  