The Great Debate: Does God Exist? | Javed Akhtar vs. Mufti Shamail Nadwi

Here is a breakdown of the intense 2-hour clash between logic, suffering, and the metaphysical.

1. The Problem of Evil: Can a Merciful God Exist Amidst Suffering?

In the intense debate on God's existence, Javed Akhtar presents the "Problem of Evil" as a central challenge to faith. Focusing on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, he raises a profound moral question: how can an all-powerful and all-merciful Creator witness the suffering of innocent children and remain silent? Akhtar argues that if God is omnipresent, He must be present amidst these tragedies. For him, the persistence of such extreme horror directly contradicts the idea of a compassionate and benevolent deity. This emotional yet logical stance suggests that the reality of human suffering is a powerful evidence against the existence of a traditional, merciful Creator.

2. The Contingency Argument: Who is the “First Cause”?

Mufti Shamail Nadwi shifted the debate from emotion to pure metaphysics and logic. He used what philosophers call the Contingency Argument.

Nadwi’s Response: He argued that the universe is “contingent” (it doesn’t have to exist, but it does). Therefore, it must have a “Necessary Cause” that brought it into being — a cause that is not part of the physical world.

The Science Gap: Nadwi clarified that science measures the physical world, while God, by definition, is non-physical. Using science to disprove God is like “trying to find plastic with a metal detector” — it’s simply the wrong tool for the job.

3. Human Free Will vs. Divine Intervention

One of the most intense moments occurred when they discussed why bad things happen.

The Mufti’s Logic: He placed the responsibility of injustice squarely on human shoulders. “The Creator created the possibility of evil to give humans Free Will. But He is not evil; the choices humans make lead to violence,” Nadwi explained.

Akhtar’s Rebuttal: Akhtar remained skeptical, arguing that morality is a human-made system designed for social order, much like traffic rules, rather than something divinely ordained.

4. Belief vs. Faith: The Burden of Proof

The debate eventually turned toward the definition of “knowing.”

The Teapot Analogy: Javed Akhtar invoked Bertrand Russell’s famous “Celestial Teapot” analogy — arguing that the person making the claim (the theist) must provide the proof, not the skeptic.

The Counter-Point: Nadwi challenged that a lack of complete scientific knowledge does not justify a definitive denial. He argued that reason leads us to a Creator even if our eyes cannot see Him.

Final Reflections: Beyond the Winning and Losing

While the internet is divided on “who won,” the real victory was the dialogue itself.

Javed Akhtar represented the voice of humanism and the demand for empirical evidence.

Mufti Shamail Nadwi represented the classical philosophical tradition of Islam, grounding faith in logical necessity rather than just blind ritual.

In a world of 30-second reels and shouting matches, this debate reminded us that the most profound questions of life deserve hours of patient, intellectual exploration.

The Core Lessons: What We Learned from the Debate

The Boundary Between Science and Faith: One of the most significant takeaways is the realization that Science and God are not necessarily in competition. Science is the tool we use to decode the mechanics of the physical world—it explains how the stars burn and how biological life evolves. In contrast, philosophy and faith dive into the metaphysical realm to ask why we are here in the first place and what the purpose of our existence is.

Understanding Human Responsibility: The debate shed light on the concept of Human Agency. A powerful analogy used was that of an architect and a building; we cannot logically blame the Architect for the chaos that ensues when the residents choose to mistreat the structure. Much of the injustice we see today is a result of human free will and the choices we make, rather than a failure of divine design.

A Journey of Mutual Respect: Ultimately, the discussion proved that the search for truth is a lifelong process that transcends winning or losing. Whether you are a firm believer or a curious skeptic, the path to understanding requires a heart rooted in respect and an open mind. It reminds us that even when we disagree on the most fundamental levels, we must maintain our shared humanity and intellectual integrity.