Food for thought:

Some things have no effect e.g. I push on a wall with all my strength (energy is consumed, force is applied) but the wall doesn't budge an inch, nothing, absolutely nothing, happens to the wall.

That means it's possible that some things are uncaused.

I think the question, "Does causality exist?" reflects a misunderstanding of how the word causality is used in linguistic settings. It's like asking, "Does 2 exist?" they exist as concepts which are used in particular ways. Asking if causality exists, is not like asking if the Earth exists, so I think the question reflects a confusion, but this happens all the time when philosophizing.

According to Hume, causality doesn't exist. There is no impression of causality in the external world. But we form the idea of causality by habit of looking at events happening one after the other. — Corvus

Of course causality does exist. Even forks full of them causing forms to interact. Causality causing, so to speak. Causality is not an idea formed by "looking at events happening one after the other". An event doesnt happen. A happening happens. Events are singular, point-like (in general relativity , that is). A happening can show a relation with other happenings. A causality exists between them. If the happenings show no correlation there is no causality in between. Maybe inside the happenings themselves there exists a form of causality. That depends on the nature of the happenings.

Teleology reverses cause and effect, effectively. An effect of a happening can become the cause. That what is sought after and what one longs to happen. The teleos.

It doesn't make sense (even though its common) to use the word 'used' without connecting it to a user.
Eg "It reflects a misunderstanding of how the word is used by the majority of modern English speakers"
Without connecting 'used' to a 'user' it gives the impression that conceptual laws exist independent of conceivers.

But anyway, you're right that the question sounds quirky. I can ask, does causality actually happen? .

I can ask, does causality actually happen? — Yohan

Causality doesn't happen. It makes happenings happen. It changes happenings. Without cause happenings happen but don't change.

Causality doesn't happen. It makes happenings happen. It changes happenings. Without cause happenings happen but don't change. — Thunderballs

Causality causes causality...

My revised question still does the same thing I guess. Are you saying we can't question the existence of concepts, because they are more like principles or models to explain things?

Causality doesn't happen. It makes happenings happen. It changes happenings. Without cause happenings happen but don't change. — Thunderballs

So can I ask, is there really something which makes things happen? Or something that makes things be what they are?

Without cause happenings happen but don't change. — Thunderballs

I can't conceive of happening without change. Unless there is a single unchanging moment happening continually.
Dang.
Edit: Actually, even in that case, time is progressing. So I would still be recognizing time changing. So it wouldn't really be one moment continuing. But I don't know, this all sounds so confusing, I don't even know what I'm saying.

Causality causes causality... — Yohan

What do you mean with this? Electric charge, mass, and six other charges are surrounded by condensates of virtual gauge particles. These are the cause. Colored gluons, cause of the strong force, can indeed cause other causes, other gluons. Hypergluons idem dito. Six different colors and hypercolors. But electric charge causes foton-causes. The electric charge doesn't cause causes but means to cause.

DANG! The Divine Feminine.

When you say causality makes a happening happen.
To me each of those words are similar.
I could say ... Making-ness makes making be made.

I can't conceive of happening without change. — Yohan

I mean that the velocity of the happening doesn't change.

Making-ness makes making be made. — Yohan

You lost me here...

The question is really about the realism of counterfactuals as well as the question of backward causation, and the reality of the temporal order.

For instance, suppose that If Bob lights a fuse, then a bomb will explode. At first glance, this appears to imply a temporal order in which Bob's action as cause precedes the bomb exploding as effect. But this clause can also be restated in reverse by saying that if the bomb is observed not to explode, then Bob couldn't have lit the fuse.

Presumably, if a bomb is defused in a state of ignorance as to Bob's earlier actions, one can at least conclude that defusing the bomb didn't alter the earlier fact as to whether or not Bob previously lit the fuse. Or does it? For there isn't a way of testing the counterfactual as to what would have happened earlier in the past had the bomb been allowed to detonate. Furthermore, if the bomb is very big then any potential evidence as to Bob's earlier actions might get destroyed by it's detonation. According to a presentist interpretation of history, there aren't any facts about the past that transcend the state of the present. This logically implies that in a finite universe where history cannot be preserved indefinitely, if a sufficiently big bomb explodes, then it must explode for no reason.

My revised question still does the same thing I guess. Are you saying we can't question the existence of concepts, because they are more like principles or models to explain things? — Yohan

Concepts have a use in language that's governed by rules (implicit and explicit), and they exist insofar as they have that use. Either the concept has a use or it doesn't, if it does, then it exists as something useful in our language. You may question how a concept is used, viz., its application, but I don't see how you can question the existence of the concept causality. If someone tries to create a concept, you might question if that concept is part of a language, so I guess in that sense you could question if the concept exists. Even concepts without a referent have existence. For example the concept unicorn, even though unicorns don't exist it still has a use as something that fictional writers might use.

Concept: an abstract idea
Abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Physical: relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Senses: a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus.
Stimulus: a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue.
Thing: an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
Object: a material thing that can be seen and touched.
Material: the matter from which a thing is or can be made.
Matter: physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit
Substance: the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.
----Got interesting here. Matter is solid? Firm and stable? So water and gass aren't made of "real physical matter"?
Continuing on:
Solid: "firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid."
Stable: (of an object or structure) not likely to give way or overturn; firmly fixed
Firm: having a solid, almost unyielding surface or structure.
At this point, to me, the definitions are getting petty circular.
Is Matter firmly fixed? Are atoms firm? Are electrons and protons firm? Are electrons and protons made of solid hard stuff?

I'm not sure my point. I'm not convinced there is solid, tangible, 'stuff'. Closer examination of 'Hard tangible stuff' reveals moving particles and such, and whatever the smallest sort of particle or whatever has so far been found, no definite, tangible, hard, concrete "substance" that makes it up has been found, as far as I know.

At any rate... so...
When we say that something causes something else, in the concrete world.... say... wind causes grass to sway. If causality is a concept rather than something concrete, then how did the wind cause the grass to sway? Is it just that we only conceive of the wind as causing the grass to sway? It didn't literally cause the grass to sway? I don't know if the question makes sense, but it's what I am wondering. Thanks

Good night

All being is causation, and in a solipsistic way, it stirs reaction in all other forms of being.