I realize that YU does not have strong suit in the history of philosophy, but even a cursory glance at some basic texts on the history of 20th Century philosophy, and in particular a chapter on logical positivism, would have made clear that Flew was working firmly in the tradition of Ayer’s verificationism. As such, a proper construal of his argument is that “God exists” is meaningless because it is a synthetic proposition which is empirically unverifiable. Your counterexample of a mathematical truth would fail on this account because it is analytic.
Now, logical positivism has fallen by the wayside and Flew’s (really Ayer’s) argument holds little water for most contemporary philosophers, but I fail to see how resurrecting his argument devoid of the context of the synthetic/ analytic distinction he was working with makes any sense or advances a significant argument. What it does show is that YU philosophy majors appear woefully ignorant of their subject of study.

Given the ignorance displayed, I found the entire tone of your article, from the title onward, incredibly arrogant. Do you think Flew was just some idiot who was too dense to come up with your “upshlug”? Unfortunately, even years of learning Gemara and studying with David Johnson do not render the fact that you were “unsuccessful in construing Professor Flew’s argument in any remotely compelling fashion” to be of any significance.