Question

Hello and blessings.
First, I distinguish between the principle of causality (that is, everything has a cause) and causality itself (that there is such a thing as a cause). My argument focuses on causality itself, without committing to the claim that everything has a cause.
David Hume argued that causality is a priori, and as I understand it, you agree with him as well. But here is a possible solution: we all sense causality from childhood, when we apply force to something and it moves. Of course, one could argue that this is only a sensation. But as is taught in philosophy of mind, sight too is only a sensation, and so is hearing. From this it follows that if one infers the existence of a chair from a sensation (seeing the chair), then one can likewise infer the existence of causality from a sensation (applying force to a chair and feeling that it moves as a result of my applying force).
 
This is not the same case as when I see someone else move a chair, because in that case I do not sense the causality itself, but only see a correlation.
 
And of course, another objection could be raised: perhaps it just so happens that whenever I feel that I applied force, the chair moves, so what we have here is correlation and not causality (even though I feel causality). To that I reply: perhaps it just so happens that whenever I feel that I see a chair, God inserts into me the idea of a chair (Berkeley’s approach), and then there is no actual existing chair here, only a chair as an idea that God places into my consciousness.
 
As you can see, I am trying to draw an analogy between the sensation of applying force (an actual physiological pressure) and the sensation of sight, such that just as I infer the existence of things from sight, so too I infer the existence of causality from the sensation of applying force. In this way, I may be able to turn the claim of causality into an a posteriori claim, just as the existence of things is an a posteriori claim.
 
I would be happy to hear your opinion of the argument.