"Does God Exist?" Debate between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail Nadwi Analysis

Mufti Shamail Nadwi’s Complete Logical Framework on the Existence of God

Based on multiple sources including transcripts, detailed analyses, and eyewitness accounts of the December 20, 2025 debate at Constitution Club, New Delhi, here is Mufti Shamail Nadwi's complete logical framework.

Core Philosophical Position

Mufti Shamail Nadwi explicitly stated that neither empirical science nor religious scripture could serve as universally accepted proof standards. Science is confined to the physical realm, while God is metaphysical, and scripture presupposes belief in revelation. He grounded his entire case in philosophical reasoning alone.

1. The Contingency Argument (Central Pillar)

The universe is contingent, meaning it is dependent on causes and could conceivably not exist. Everything contingent requires a cause or explanation for its existence. An infinite regress of contingent causes is logically untenable. Therefore, the chain must terminate in a Necessary Being (Wajib al-Wujud) whose existence is intrinsic and uncaused. This Necessary Being is God.

He stated, “If the universe is contingent, then it must have a first cause.” Denying this leads to the fallacy of infinite regress, where explanations are endlessly postponed without ultimate grounding.

2. Science Limitation Argument

Using science to disprove God is like trying to find plastic with a metal detector. Science measures the physical world, while God by definition is non-physical. Scientific discoveries explain how natural processes function, not why the universe exists at all.

3. Design and Fine-Tuning Argument

The precise laws governing the universe, including constants, entropy, and fine-tuning, suggest intentional creation rather than chance. He used the analogy of finding a ball on an isolated island, where one would logically infer that a conscious being placed it there. The astonishing order and precision of natural laws testify to a Creator.

4. Moral Argument (Against Moral Relativism)

Ethical values cannot be reduced to social consensus or human constructs. He posed a rhetorical challenge: if oppression is declared right by the majority, does that make oppression just? Objective morality requires a transcendent source beyond human agreement.

5. Free Will Defense (Problem of Evil)

The creator allowed the possibility of evil to grant humans genuine free will. God is not evil; humans who misuse free will are responsible for suffering. Acts such as violence and rape are human choices, not divine faults. Evil serves a purpose by defining good, creating moral tests, and enabling spiritual growth.

In response to Gaza and human suffering, he argued that suffering reflects human agency, not divine absence. The creator gave responsibility to humanity.

6. Epistemological Argument

Human reason can recognize the need for a Creator by reflecting on creation. However, human faculties cannot fully comprehend God or attain complete knowledge of Him. The Quran states, “Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware” (6:104).

Atheism’s claim that reason cannot find God is a confession of limited human capacity, not proof of non-existence.

7. Burden of Proof Reversal

The denial of God is itself a positive claim requiring proof. Nadwi demanded definitive proof for God’s non-existence and cited an asymmetry: believers present multiple rational arguments, while atheists rely on insistence.

8. Logical Structure of Time and Causation

Questions about what God was doing before creation are logically flawed because time itself began with the universe. The First Cause transcends temporal categories.

9. Rejection of Infinite Regress

An actual infinite series of causes is impossible. The explanatory chain must terminate at a cause that itself requires no explanation.

10. Historical Consistency Argument

He briefly noted that billions of humans across cultures have reached similar conclusions about a Creator through reason alone, suggesting this is a natural human conclusion.

Cross-Examination Strategy

During cross-examination, Nadwi pressed two points. First, refute the contingency argument with logical counter-arguments. Second, provide a naturalistic source for objective morality that does not reduce to social consensus.

When philosophical terminology caused confusion, he clarified concepts such as infinite regress and necessary being in simpler terms before returning to his logical framework.

Javed Akhtar vs Mufti Shamail Nadwi: Does God Exist Analysis

A historic debate on God’s existence captivated millions as Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail Nadwi faced off. The Delhi event sparked a national conversation on December 20, 2025.

The West Bengal Urdu Academy cancelled a literary festival following protests against Akhtar’s atheistic views. In response, Mufti Nadwi invited Akhtar for a formal debate. The Academic Dialogue Forum and Wahyain Foundation organized the event.

Debate Setting and Structure

The Constitution Club hosted the two-hour discussion, moderated by Saurabh Dwivedi. The format included opening statements and rebuttals. Both participants avoided slogans and personal attacks, maintaining a respectful tone.

Mufti Nadwi’s Arguments

Mufti Nadwi relied on the contingency argument for God’s existence. He argued that the universe requires a necessary and independent being. He maintained that science can neither prove nor disprove divine existence.

He stated that moral values transcend social consensus and that free will explains human suffering rather than divine absence. He emphasized philosophical reasoning over scripture, rejected the fallacy of infinite regress, and presented the First Cause as a transcendent Being.

Javed Akhtar’s Arguments

Javed Akhtar presented a rationalist atheist perspective. He distinguished evidence-based belief from blind faith and argued that morality is a human construct developed for social order.

He cited suffering in Gaza as a challenge to the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent God. Akhtar asserted that the burden of proof lies with believers, not skeptics. He questioned the permanence of religious systems and identified himself as a progressive intellectual descendant.

Key Analysis Points

Both speakers share a North Indian Muslim heritage, and the debate remained civil despite deep philosophical disagreements. They found common ground in acknowledging the tragedy of Gaza.

Mufti Nadwi represents an integrated modern-traditional Islamic education, with Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama fostering a culture of debate. Akhtar carries forward the legacy of the Progressive Writers’ Movement.

More than ten million viewers watched the debate online across platforms. The event transcended typical shouting-match formats and demonstrated that faith can belong in public discourse.

Significance of the Debate

Viewing the debate as a win-or-lose contest misses its deeper meaning. The real victory was the presence of civil dialogue itself. The event modeled respectful disagreement for Indian society.

It challenged Islamophobic narratives about religious scholars and increased public intellectual engagement with faith. The debate set new standards for religious discourse and showed that philosophy can bridge ideological divides.

Viewers gained meaningful insights into both perspectives. This exchange is likely to influence future public conversations about faith and reason.