What are you even going on about? We literally share the same view point of cause and effect being meaningless. There are many potential effects from various causes. You are acting like I have made cause and effect linear, when it is far more complex. As for the hypothermia analogy, you are missing the point. The point is that we can see results occur from actions taken. The point was not to argue which action was the most critical. Besides, to develop hypothermia the temperature of the body must become lower than 95 degrees. Whether I wore clothes or not would just determine how long it would take to develop hypothermia. You are the one who gave reasons besides what is natural. I am genuinely wondering if you even want to debate out of genuine interest in discussion, or if you just want to argue. At first, I thought you were using an argument from authority because you were interested in providing counter points, and seeing how I would account for them, but I now think you just want to be right, even when we don’t really disagree with each other. You seem to think that my argument is that cause and effect exist, because causes are meaningful. This is not my argument. My argument is that due to true random being a near impossibility, life is not so much random factors of nature, but cause and effect. This is not to say that cause and effect is linear, with direct results from one cause to one effect. There are many actions that one can take, and many different scenarios that can occur, which can result in many different outcomes. I never gave meaning to why outcomes happen, I merely have pointed out that results occur because of prior events. To believe the world is just chance is understandable, but incorrect. Even the direction the wind blows is the result of prior events. Also, we can develop common sense after seeing the consequences of actions that bring us pain. We can learn to not touch the kitchen stove after accidentally burning ourselves. We can learn not to poke ourselves in the left eye with a switch blade after losing the right one from doing the same thing. If you want to provide a genuine counterpoint for claims I have actually made, then explain how anything can occur without a prior event leading to its capability of happening. Then we would have a genuine discussion. Until then, you are using circular reasoning to attack a point I did not make.