Cause and Effect

So you say you believe in cause and effect, in that case let me put a hypothetical to you:

You are getting ready to leave for work, but your car won't start because you left the dome light on overnight and ran the battery down, as a result your start is delayed by half an hour while you get someone to give you a jump.  In the meanwhile another person is leaving their home pissed off at their spouse, and fuming over the argument that had started their morning out.  His route is perpendicularto your own, and just as you enter into an intersection with the green light, he in the preoccupation he has in his thought failed to see that his light is red, and not only runs the light, but crashed into the side of your car.

If I asked you whose fault it was you would say it was his, he was the one who ran the light, and I would agree.  However, if I were to ask you what caused the accident what would you say?  If you said that it was him not obeying the light you would be wrong.  That was only one factor.  Had he not got so pissed off before he left for work he would have had his mind on driving and not his wife resulting in him not running the light resulting in him not being in an accident.  Had you not left the dome light on overnight you would have been long gone before he got to the intersection, the results being that you would not have been in an accident.

On your way to your accident there could have also been other events that arranged for you to get at the intersection at just the right time.  You might have slowed down for a pedestrian, went through a school speed zone that would not have been in effect had you left on time.  This is true for the other driver, many events led to putting him right at the intersection just as you drove through it. 

Cause and effect are only clear when you do not examine the situation very closely.  Consider lighting and thunder.  Virtually everyone will tell you that lighten caused the thunder because the thunder comes after the lighting.  That is only true at a distance because light and sound travels at different speeds.  At the moment of creation both the lighting and thunder come into existence at the same instant.  It seems clear to me that thunder does not cause lighting, could there not be a case made for the possibility that both the lighting and thunder were created with the same event, neither causing the other? 

Behind the lighting is a potential difference between a positive and negative charge in either the atmosphere or between the atmosphere and the ground.  It is the leveling of this potential that causes both the lighting and the thunder.  What caused the difference in potential was the friction of molecules in the air, like rubbing a balloon on a cat.  Behind this friction is the wind that moves the molecules around, so does the wind cause the lighting/thunder?  No, for the wind is created by the temperature difference in the atmosphere.  If you look hard enough you can blame every event that happens on earth, other than seismic event, on the sun, for if there was no sun there would be no weather or life to act anything out.

This can lead you to believe that who/whatever made the sun is the cause of all non-seismic event on earth.  Maybe God’s plan?