|
David,
As I see it, the difference in the "contradictions" is also categorical.
The atheist posits a belief system that says X but then lives as Y. Hume even acknowledged that his skepticism was unlivable and he had to live a life completely contrary to his stated worldview.
It is one thing to have a coherent worldview in which the creature acknowledges the unrevealed nature of the Creator, it is another thing to have a completely incoherent worldview in which you state that truth does not exist but then you live as if it does.
In my worldview, the incomprehensible is accounted for in God's hidden knowledge. That is quite different than the atheist who lives and acts as if there is a God (in fact knows it) but then denies that Truth with an inane philosophy that he can't even live out.
Let's also say that, in the end, this answer is not acceptable to the atheist and he says: "Well, in the end, we both have elements we can't explain. I prefer my version of truth."
Guess what? I don't really care.
As I witnessed to a young woman recently, I don't change the declaration of the historical fact that Christ's death and resurrection or that He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead simply because His enemies don't like the facts of history. I frankly think we make too much of objections and worry too much about the argument that will finally convince the fool that he really is what God says about Him. If he sees that then he'll be on his knees because your declaration of the Gospel would have been attended by the power of the Holy Spirit.
|