The idea is madness. utterly, a Zippy mantra enabling a conehead to get high on the vacuous emptiness of its conceit.
To add to the psycho-babble of ideology:
According to David Lewis, if a and b are distinct events that actually occur, then b causally depends on a if and only if a were not to occur, then b would not occur either (1973a). If the match had not been struck, then it would not have lit. ...But, but, what about the many times I have struck a match and the match has not lit. Varying circumstances caused this to happen, a damp environment which discourages fire, an abrasive surface for striking a match which is no longer abrasive, age and decay of the chemicals in the matches. Holy Cow! Just because you strike a match -- or friction it against a suitably rough surface -- does not mean that it will burst into flame.
But, but, what about the counter logic of counterfactual theory? I leap, like Zippy, into a wonderful fairyland of conjectural bewilderment ... below the fold.
In the matter of a and b and a causal relationship between the two, if the action of a occurs but b does not result, what about the logic of the invisible hand and intelligent design?
How did it all happen? Why must it be so damned uncertain? If a match is struck, or rubbed frictionally against an appropriately rough surface ... some matches are designed so that they only ignite when rubbed frictionally against a specific chemically treated surfaces, a markedly complex synergy which cancels out all a's as the cause of b. I concede that b can still occur if the proper circumstances of a occur but not always. That's as far as I'll go.
A possibility, but nothing so firm as a probability.
Intelligent design? Pishtah! Again, a possibility, remotely, but blind happenstance prevails. Once in a while even the universe makes sense and is momentarily certain.
Randomness. I name myself Annie Random as opposed to that bitch Ayn Rand and her whatever crap.