What in the world is the "Law of Causality"?
Whats more, For all of history up this point(from the big bang until now) to be such that we can make accurate predictions about the weather, solid state devices, the rotation of the earth around the sun, migratory patterns of animals, the location of comets, etc. etc. etc., without things being caused whatsoever would have to be so statistically impossible as to lead me to question the person who believes such a things intelligence.
To see this, let us focus on one of the natural constants, Planck's constant, and study its relation to both the parts, and the whole structure, of the universe.
Planck's constant is linked intimately to each part of the universe through which life evolved. Quantum physics plays an essential role in genetic variation which in turn drives biological evolution. If the numerical value of Planck's constant were slightly different, life could not have arisen via evolution on a planet like ours. Thus Planck's constant is linked to the phenomenon of life and sentience; it is thus a part of the contingency of the biological processes of a universe that is filled with life and a sign of life's dependence on the God who creates life through biological evolution, including therein the role of quantum physics.
Planck's constant also contributes to the overall, physical character of the universe as a whole. During the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang the universe was governed by a single fundamental interaction; the very early universe, being microscopic, was a quantum phenomenon. Had the value of Planck's constant been different than it is, the universe may never have produced the right astrophysical and geological conditions for biological life to ever get started. Without this value the physical preconditions for evolution - cosmological production of helium, generation of galaxies, stars, and planets, etc. - might never have occurred. In this way the value of Planck's constant is essential to the global, physical character of the universe.
To abandon necessitarianism means to elevate – and to live with – contingency: the world does not have to be the way it is; it just is. The charge on the electron does not have to be –1.6 × 10–19 coulombs; it just is. Light does not have to have a constant, finite, velocity; it just does. To invoke nomological necessities to 'account' for such constancies (order, etc.) is to engage in explanatory hand-waving. Is it really any more informative to be told that light has a constant velocity because there is a law of nature to that effect than to be told that opium is sleep-inducing because it has a 'dormative power'? The form of an explanation has been given, but the content is chimerical.
There is orderliness is Nature. That's the way Nature is. There are no secret, sublime, mystical laws forcing Nature to be that way. Or at least, there is no good rational reason to believe that there are such queer entities. Physical laws are descriptions, they neither are, nor function like, prescriptions.
I totally agree that the with this statement that "the world does not have to be the way it is; it just is". However, due to the way "it just is", certain cause and effect relations necessarily followed...
Do you not agree?
then you aren't focusing on the correct aspect.
You agree that that the speed of light is what it is I would hope, yes? Let us not worry about why it is what it is at this point...let's just start from the ground that it's real and it's there...
With that being the case, would you not say that certain cause and effects had to follow?
I mean, the speed of light being what it is has had certain effects on the universe...would you not say so?
of course things have to follow from the way things are.
Because our biology is such that we need oxygen to live it follows that without oxygen we will die. I'm not sure what's not to follow. Never mind why it is that we need oxygen...we are starting from the fact that we do....given that, it follows that, without it, we die.
To say we "don't have HAVE to die", to me, seems to be an attempt on your part to say something like this, "If the initial conditions of the universe were different in such a way as not require humans to need oxygen to live, then we wouldn't die", but that is quite obvious I would say.
There are universally true statements, such as "no mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light", but that's not something that CAN'T to happen, it's something that DOESN'T happen.