‘Does God Exist?’: Mufti Shamail Nadwi Commands Stage in Debate with Javed Akhtar, Exposes Limits of Skepticism

Alfaaz – The Words Desk

New Delhi: Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi emerged as the more persuasive voice in a high-profile debate on “Does God Exist?” with writer-poet Javed Akhtar on The Lallantop on Saturday, as the discussion repeatedly returned to foundational philosophical questions that skepticism struggled to conclusively answer.

From the outset, Mufti Shamail framed belief in God as a rational conclusion rather than an inherited assumption. He argued that the universe is inherently contingent and dependent. “Everything that exists depends on something else,” he said, asserting that this chain of dependence cannot regress infinitely and must culminate in a necessary, independent being, the God. According to him, rejecting this premise leaves the question of existence itself unresolved.

Mufti Shamail, as per Alfaaz – The Words, further pressed the issue of morality, stating that ethical values detached from a divine source inevitably become relative. “If right and wrong are decided only by society,” he argued, “then they can change with power, time and convenience.” He maintained that belief in God provides an objective moral anchor that skepticism fails to adequately replace.

Javed Akhtar reiterated his atheist position, stating plainly that he does not believe in God and that philosophical reasoning does not amount to proof. He argued that humans have historically invoked God to explain what they could not otherwise understand and insisted that morality, empathy and creativity are human constructs shaped by social evolution. Akhtar also cited suffering, injustice and inequality as contradictions to the idea of an all-powerful, benevolent creator.

However, Mufti Shamail consistently countered these objections by challenging their underlying assumptions. He argued that the presence of suffering does not negate God’s existence and that judging divine justice by human standards reflects a category error. He also pointed out that the absence of empirical proof does not equal non-existence, noting that many accepted realities, including abstract truths and moral values, are not empirically measurable.

As the debate progressed, Mufti Shamail repeatedly drew attention to what he described as the limitations of skepticism, arguing that disbelief itself rests on unproven assumptions. He maintained that rejecting metaphysical explanations while relying exclusively on empirical reasoning represents an incomplete application of rational thought.

The attendees to the event said that while Akhtar remained articulate and consistent in his skepticism, his arguments were largely reactive, focused on questioning religious belief rather than offering a comprehensive alternative explanation for existence, morality or purpose. Mufti Shamail, by contrast, advanced a coherent philosophical framework that set the terms of the discussion and compelled engagement at the level of first principles.

While questions of faith and metaphysics are debated for a very long now, the balance of the in the imminent debate clearly tilted in Mufti Shamail’s favour, with many viewers concluding that his arguments displayed greater depth, structure and philosophical clarity.