Your examples didn't demonstrate that at all.
They demonstrate that we can have patterns without necessary causation. Do you disagree? If so, why?
If a "pattern" is nothing more than a random series of recurrences of previous events, then it is completely meaningless. It proves nothing but that the same thing can happen twice, at random; it does not supply us with any basis for believing that the pattern will continue, neither "definitely" nor "probably". One can't say, "we can assume that X will probably
occur because it has occurred many times in the past in similar conditions" without implying that those conditions cause
X to occur, and what's more, that something more fundamental to the nature of reality causes
those conditions to have that effect.
You say that randomness doesn't equate to equal distribution, but something cannot possibly be factually more likely to occur than anything else without something causing
it to be so. Mass cannot be assumed to be likely to continue to attract mass unless there is something in Nature that makes it behave in that way. The fact that mass has always attracted mass in the past gives us absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that it is any more likely to do so in the future than not without admitting causality. If there is no causality, then anything that looks like probability is just an illusion. Denying causality reduces all theory to wild guessing.
...We both have beliefs about the universe that can't be falsified. I believe it's random and you apparently believe that it's not. Either of our beliefs are completely consistent with every possible observation. Since we can't falsify each others claims, we have to appeal to something else since it's possible that either of us could be right. I appeal to Occam's Razor. We already know that the universe behaves a certain way and I claim that it "just does" without any hidden, unprovable necessary connections.
You say that despite the fact that all observation suggests that things always
act in a certain way, and implies causality. Denying that is not Occam's Razor; it's just an assertion without any empirical support. And besides, "it just does" still leaves open the question of "why?" Repeating "it just does" is circular reasoning. Saying "because Nature is governed by causal laws" at least provides an answer. It is no more falsifiable than your belief, but my belief at least appears
to be supported by all the evidence that experience has to offer.
If you think otherwise, you have the burden of believing in something akin to religious faith.
It's not a burden at all. I believe in God because I see the existence of a supernatural Ultimate Cause as being far more likely than the innumerable coincidences that would have had to occur to bring something as complex as human consciousness into existence, considering each coincidence as a separate assumption. Of course it is religious faith; I am a Christian after all. However, I'm not trying to prove that God exists in this thread. I am only arguing for causality.
You clearly don't understand my beliefs. Under my view, economic laws are real and every bit as law-like as the laws of nature. I'm downgrading the laws of nature, not economic laws.
And in so doing, you relegate economic laws to "things which I believe will apply in the future", while at the same time denying that you have any identifiable reason for such belief. Which Keynes likewise did, in his work before the General Theory. In denying that economic laws are descriptive of things that are fundamentally true
about human nature, he was able to posit that they could be "broken" without predictable consequences. E.g., we don't really know
that increasing the quantity of money will result in higher prices just because it has in the past. To say otherwise is to posit a naive, causal
view of the world. Therefore we shall empower the government to meddle in the economy without end. Not only do we reject the childish causal-realism of the Austrians, we also don't know whether something the government does
that works this time will even work again in the future.
Which explains the numerous and blatant contradictions in the General Theory. Keynes really didn't believe that he was describing a fully consistent system in his economics.