Governments should tax oil more aggressively to force energy transitions.

Daily Debate #577: "Governments should tax oil more aggressively to force energy transitions.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

Many people say, ‘The universe exists, so God must exist as its cause.’ But that move doesn’t actually explain anything—it just pushes the question back one step. If the universe needs a cause, why doesn’t God? If God can exist without a cause, why can’t the universe? And if you say God is a ‘necessary being’ who doesn’t need an explanation, then you’ve admitted that something can exist without a cause. At that point, invoking God isn’t an explanation; it’s an extra, unproven entity that solves nothing. The real question isn’t ‘What caused the universe?’ but ‘Why is “God did it” treated as an answer when it has no mechanism, no evidence, and the same explanatory gaps as the universe itself?

You're confusing "explanation" with "mechanism." A cause doesn't need gears and circuits to be real. "God exists necessarily" isn't an escape hatch, it's a metaphysical claim: some things require external causes, others don't. The universe—contingent, changing, dependent on physical laws—looks like the first type. God—if real—would be the second. You've proven nothing by saying they're symmetrical. Here's your real problem: you assume the universe's contingency without justification. Why should brute fact be more believable than necessary being?