Causality part 2

@ osi : the thesis is this, everything happens by chance. Now as for the definition of causality, the principle of causality is the occurrence of a definite effect given a definite cause, meaning there is always an effect given a cause. Now to address your arguments, to consider something as the cause of something the thoughts must be necessarily connected meaning smoke is necessarily where fire is and vise versa. But clearly there are occurrences of fire without smoke. So how are they necessarily connected when one can do without the other? As for your cupboard opening with light flooding in, how in the world is opening a cupboard connected with the light flowing in? If your actually arguing that every cause has an effect of a sort isn't that saying there really is no principle of causality? If anything is possible given a cause then there is only chance that governs these occurrences? You see, the ideas you gave might be true, but aren't always true. Even data of scientists are proven wrong from time to time, have you ever heard of the space shuttles exploding just 13 seconds up the air? and didn't the scientists say that the shuttle was perfectly safe? Why do scientific theories take 300 years of proving before it becomes a law when people are so sure? so in the end isn't causality just a habit of the mind trying to connect various causes to the most common effects they have? clicking the post button will post your comment? please, aren't there occurrences where it fucks up and fails to post? nothing is certain, the idea of causality can only take us as far, but it can never tells us absolute certainty. think about it again, because the causality you say you know is the very reason why we say there isn't causality.

Humian Skepticism, the bane of our existence

First of all I am creating this post not to harm beliefs but rather to show you an entirely new way of looking at things...
David Hume the philosopher behind this is known for his uncanny consistency with his arguments.
He came to a point that he has become so consistent that we, as people trying to live our lives, could not and can never accept his philosophy, why, you might ask? Well let me give you a little sample of his skepticism, lets start off with a story:

There was this nerd, a super genius nerdy type that was the type who always got 4.0's or straight A's, but being the genius he was, he had this idiotic habit of waiting for exactly 8 o'clock before stepping into the school no matter what time he got there. Now one Monday, at exactly 8 o'clock, he stepped into the school feeling good and refreshed as he always does when doing this, when suddenly exactly 3 seconds after he heard a loud screech and a red car parked near the school gate. He at first paid no heed to such an occurrence thinking it must have been just a coincidence. The next day as he stepped into the school at exactly 8 o'clock feeling good, a red car just screeched and parked near the gate once again, and as he checked the time it was once again exactly 3 seconds after he stepped in. Being the genius he was, he started taking notice of this event. Mysteriously, the exact same thing happened both on Wednesday and Thursday as well this convinced him to consult a friend about it, having only one friend though, he told him of the event and come Friday both he and the friend waited near the gate and at exactly 8 o'clock exactly 3 seconds after he stepped in, the red car once again screeched and parked at the same exact space. Now the question is that Is the nerd causing the red car to stop and park? of course we know that this is an impossibility as the idea of stepping into school and a red car parking are totally different and have no grounds of being a cause and effect argument...

but then what if I then told you that this occurrence is exactly the same as these ideas? namely the following:
cause effect
smoke fire
jumping down a building death
dropping a piece of chalk breakage
universe God

impossible isn't it? well according to David Hume, the ideas we get are simply secondary perceptions that occur in our minds, the first thoughts are what he calls impressions, now for an idea be valid and to have meaning according to Hume, it must be supported by a corresponding impression, these impressions are things which we perceive here in the real world which we later form into ideas. Stop here, think for a second, think about anything that is real and you will see that we do have impressions of where these things were based on. Now here comes the main problem, the Principle of Causality, the very principle responsible for our everyday living and existence does not have a corresponding impression which shows it to us! You see for David Hume, there are 3 things as to where we base our thoughts on causality, these are contiguity (ideas that come next to each other.. e.g. I live in apartment B. Oh! He lives between apartments A and C) , priority in time (Before and After occurrences of the event) and Constant Conjunction (the ideas are joint together). These are all satisfied by the Principle of Causality. But then if thats the case where's the problem you ask? well you see Hume was not convinced by these 3 evidences, he was searching for a fourth factor this was the thought of necessary connection. Now this may sound a bit confusing... they are necessarily connected are they not? well this might be what most people would think, but think about it. When we see smoke there just might be fire isn't it? There is also a chance for there not to be a fire! when someone jumps down a building we think that there will be death, but there is a chance that the person will live and will only suffer a couple of injuries.. even if the event has happened around a million times, the next time could always have a chance of having a different outcome, this therefore shows us that no one cause and one effect can be considered necessarily correct!! But taking it a step further, we come to a conclusion that nothing is certain, that nothing can assure us of anything... this means studying hard won't guarantee an A or a passing mark, as well as breathing can necessarily be connected to living... so then the question becomes what do we live for now?

Please by all means post arguments or comments on this post, the more counter arguments and examples you give the better!