Nazis And The Existence Of God

It is written:

“for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15  who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)” (Romans 2:14-15)

The Nazis provide powerful evidence for the existence of God.

At the famous Nuremberg trials, several Nazis claimed that they were morally justified in trying to exterminate the Jewish people because they were acting in the best interest of their country. However, the judges had the following to say about the matter.

““Dr. Flew was a member of the British Army, and I was a member of the American Air Force in World War II. Our nations accused, tried and condemned and in some cases even executed the Nazis. They were accused of heinous crimes. Now here was the defense of the Nazis, as you will notice on Chart No. 43W. They said, “Our society had its own needs and desires.” If I have understood Dr. Flew, this is his basis for morality. He holds if an individual or society meets its own needs and/ or desires, then it is acting morally. The Nazis also said, “Our society had its own needs and desires. Our society made its own laws based on those needs and desires. Our society commanded us to exterminate the Jews. It would have been wrong for us not to have obeyed. But now you try to condemn us with a law of an alien society, a value system which had absolutely nothing to do with us. You are therefore condemning us by the use of an ex post facto law which you force upon us.” But note: there is the conscience within man that will simply not allow Dr. Flew to accept that kind of ungodly doctrine, that the German nation had the right to invent a law, which because of the alleged needs and desires of their own society allowed them to seek to exterminate this nation of people–not only to exterminate them but to do so in the most agonizing ways; e.g., to build roads to the East in such fashion that none of them could survive the ordeal. Robert Jackson, one of the Supreme Court Justices of the United States, who was the prosecutor, in his closing address during the Nuremberg trials, had this to say, “These men should be tried on this basis, on a higher law, a higher law which rises above the provincial”–( the provincial is the area of Germany, the geographical area)–” and the transient” (the period of time in which the Nazis had charge of Germany). In other words he (Jackson) contended that the Nazis did not have the right to invent a law within their own nation and say, “This is right for us even if it is wrong for you.” (Antony Flew, Thomas B. Warren, Warren-Flew Debate On The Existence Of God, 244-259 (Kindle Edition): Glasgow, KY; National Christian Press)

There is within mankind a moral consciousness of right and wrong, which goes beyond our cultural setting. This points undeniably to the existence of the Creator of the universe.

As former atheist C.S. Lewis pointed out:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 38-39 (Kindle Edition); HarperCollins E-Books)

This moral law is prescriptive, i.e., it describes what people out to do (or not do). The words of Norman Geisler in this regard are enlightening:

“Christian ethics is a form of the divine-command position. An ethical duty is something we ought to do. It is a divine prescription. Of course, the ethical imperatives that God gives are in accord with his unchangeable moral character. That is, God wills what is right in accordance with his own moral attributes. “Be holy, because I am holy,” the Lord commanded Israel (Lev. 11: 45). “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Jesus said to his disciples (Matt. 5: 48). “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6: 18). So we should not lie either. “God is love” (1 John 4: 16), and so Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself ” (Matt. 22: 39). In brief, Christian ethics is based on God’s will, but God never wills anything contrary to his unchanging moral character….“Since moral rightness is prescribed by a moral God, it is prescriptive. For there is no moral law without a moral Lawgiver; there is no moral legislation without a moral Legislator. So Christian ethics by its very nature is prescriptive, not descriptive. Ethics deals with what ought to be, not with what is. Christians do not find their ethical duties in the standard of Christians but in the standard for Christians—the Bible. From a Christian point of view, a purely descriptive ethic is no ethic at all. Describing human behavior is the task of sociology. But prescribing human behavior is the province of morality. The attempt to derive morals from mores is, as we have already noted, the “is-ought” fallacy. What people actually do is not the basis for what they ought to do. If it were, then people ought to lie, cheat, steal, and murder, since these things are done all the time.” (Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 94-133 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Academic)

The Nazis-and the judges at Nuremberg-bear powerful testimony regarding the fact of existence of God.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: