Details for 1446415.pdf

We Can Know God Exists Because
Objective Right and Wrong Exists
At the end of World War II, several leaders of the Nazi party stood
trial for their heinous crimes. The attorneys defending these men
claimed that since they were only following orders, and since their
actions were not in violation of any laws to which they were subject, that they had committed no crimes. However, these men were
found guilty; not of violating German law, but rather of violating a
law which is common to all men and which supersedes the laws of
any specific country. They were found guilty on the basis that there
is a law of human conduct of which all men are intrinsically aware
and to which all men are amenable. In other words, there is a universal and objective right, as well as a universal and objective wrong.
Thomas Aquinas called this “natural law.” C.S. Lewis called it “the
law of human nature.” These were religious men, and they recognized that the origin of this moral code was God. This belief is not,
however, limited to religious men. Any honest and clear-thinking
person acknowledges that some acts, such as rape or child abuse, are
innately wrong, even if the law of the land does not prohibit them.
Even the atheist, whether or not he realizes it, acknowledges the existence of a moral code when he speaks of “human rights.” I submit
that we can know God exists because right and wrong exist.
If there is no God, and therefore man is simply another product of
evolution – no more valuable or special than a wolf or a rock, then
on what basis can it be said that human beings have inherent rights?
If there is no God, and therefore no objective standard of good and
evil, then on what basis could one ever say what a man “ought” to
do in any given situation? The fact that we often argue as to what is
right or wrong proves that there is a standard. Else why waste time
arguing? If there were no objective good or bad, then men might
fight and kill one another, but they could no more argue than wolves
or rocks argue. When we argue, we admit that there is a standard,
and we appeal to that standard in an attempt to prove we are right.
There seems to be a universal desire to live up to this standard.
When we are accused of being dishonest or selfish, we either try
to deny it or to give a valid excuse for why we behaved that way. If
there is no standard, our response should be, “Yes, I lied; so what?”
Logic insists that if there is a creation, there must be a Creator.
Likewise, if there is a law, there must be a Law Giver. The reason we
applaud and reward good deeds, while loathing and punishing evil
is that we are created in the image of a loving, benevolent, infinitely
good God. He is both Creator and Law Giver. He is the standard.
By Philip Tomlin


comments powered by Disqus