>muh causes
>muh effects
>muh causality
You realize this is pure head canon, right? You can't demonstrate that something "makes" something else happen. You can't even explain what it means for anything to "cause" something. All you can do is observe a recurring sequence of events and fill the logical gaps between them with this mysterious "causality".

Consider how differently a murderer, a pathologist and a cellular biologist see a victim's cause of death: for one, the death was caused by stabbing the victim in the neck; for the other it was caused by a ruptured carotid artery; for the last, it was maybe some cascade of necrotic cellular processes. Each one will treat his "X causes Y" just-so story as an adequate and objective explanation, oblivious or indifferent to its failure to completely rule out other conceivable outcomes.

No matter how much you drill down, the logical gap between your causes and their supposed effects never goes away. You can never logically demonstrate that the effect follows from the cause the way a conclusion follows from a premise, except by way of extra premises that are circular or defeasible.