I’ve heard some kind of issue with the Derek Chauvin trial that the Left is defending it by saying that it’s “the exception that proves the rule.” (I don’t know what it is, to be honest I’ve only paid minimal attention to it.) Around the same time I have been having a debate with an atheist about the existence of God, and I’ve used the argument from contingency; the atheist objected that the argument begs the question by making God a necessary being. I responded by saying that “the exception proves the rule,” we know we can’t beg the question with the existence of other things because we know that everything else is contingent; but if everything else is contingent, than everything is dependent upon a necessary being for their existence. Was that a good response, or did I miss something? Are there cases where exceptions prove the rules?
Talk of contingency presupposes a valid abstraction behind perception. Rejecting any sort of 'form' rejects anything having any sort of actual meaning or individuality; this is why all true atheists are nihilists. A lot of people who say they are atheists are agnostic or trying to get a reaction from someone. Exceptions don't prove anything, and all proofs have assumptions.
I'm honestly not sure whether humans are capable of true atheism. We all worship something, whether we admit it or not.
