"Does God Exist?" , Unpacking the Eternal Question : Debate Between Mufti Shamail Nadwi and  Javed Akhtar

In the heart of New Delhi, on December 20, 2025, a packed audience at the Constitution Club witnessed a riveting intellectual showdown that has since captivated millions online. 

The debate, titled "Does God Exist?", pitted renowned atheist lyricist and screenwriter Javed Akhtar against Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi, moderated by journalist Abhisar Sharma. Organized by the Wahyain Foundation, this academic dialogue drew over 10 million views on YouTube within days, sparking heated discussions across social media and beyond. 

As an event blending philosophy, theology, and reason, it echoed timeless questions while reflecting contemporary tensions in India's diverse society. Let's delve into the arguments from both sides, assess the "winner," explore its impacts, and ponder whether such debates should persist.

Does God Exist' Debate: Who Won 

(Javed Akhtar or Mufti Shamail Nadwi?)

Javed Akhtar's Case: A Rationalist Assault on Faith

Javed Akhtar, a celebrated figure in Bollywood known for his progressive views and roots in the Progressive Writers' Movement, approached the debate from a staunch atheist perspective. Influenced by his father's Leftist politics and a North Indian Muslim background, Akhtar argued for relegating religion to the private sphere or eliminating it altogether in favor of evidence-based reasoning.

His key arguments revolved around the evolution of human belief systems. Akhtar pointed out how ancient civilizations worshipped gods like those in Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythologies, only for these to be supplanted by modern religions as human knowledge advanced. 

He highlighted declining religious adherence in parts of Europe as evidence that faith diminishes with scientific progress. Central to his stance was the distinction between "belief" and "faith": Belief, he said, is grounded in evidence, reason, and reliable testimony, while faith demands acceptance without proof, often discouraging critical questioning.

Akhtar invoked the problem of human suffering to challenge the notion of an omnipotent, benevolent God. He questioned why innocent children endure wars, hunger, diseases, and natural disasters if a all-powerful deity exists and intervenes. "Nature has no justice," he asserted, comparing moral systems to human inventions like traffic rules—created for societal order, not divinely ordained. Predators aren't punished for killing prey, he noted, underscoring that justice is a human construct, not inherent in the universe.

Shifting the burden of proof, Akhtar referenced philosopher Bertrand Russell's "celestial teapot" analogy: Just as one can't disprove an undetectable teapot orbiting Earth, skeptics shouldn't have to refute God's existence—the onus lies on believers to provide evidence. He expressed pain over global atrocities, like those in Gaza, and opposed right-wing politics in countries, framing religion as a potential divider rather than unifier.

Akhtar's delivery was passionate and anecdotal, drawing from personal experiences and cultural critiques, but critics noted it sometimes veered into emotional appeals rather than rigorous counterarguments.

Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamail Debate on God Sparks Intense Public ...

Mufti Shamail Nadwi's Defense: Philosophical Foundations of Theism

On the other side stood Mufti Shamail Nadwi, an eminent scholar from Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, blending traditional Islamic teachings with modern education from Aligarh Muslim University and the International Islamic University Malaysia. Nadwi advocated for debating theology alongside sciences, emphasizing philosophy as the bridge since science is limited to the physical world and scriptures may not persuade non-believers.

His cornerstone was the "contingency argument," a philosophical staple akin to the Kalam cosmological argument. Nadwi argued that the universe is contingent—dependent on external causes—and cannot explain its own existence. This chain of dependencies requires a necessary, eternal, independent, intelligent, and powerful being: God. The precise laws governing the universe, he claimed, suggest intentional design rather than random chance; science describes "how" things work, not "why" they exist.

Addressing the problem of evil, Nadwi posited that suffering defines good and justice, serving as a test for humanity. It arises from human free will—wars, violence, and injustices are choices, not divine flaws. An omnipotent God isn't obligated to prevent all suffering; instead, moral accountability ensures ultimate justice. He dismissed questions like "What did God do before creation?" as flawed, since time itself began with the universe.

Nadwi challenged the idea of justice as mere social consensus: If a majority deems oppression "right," it doesn't make it so—implying an objective moral source in God. He insisted deniers share the burden of proof by refuting the contingency argument. Like Akhtar, Nadwi expressed concerns over Gaza and opposed right-wing dominance in some countries, showing shared political ground.

Nadwi's style was structured and composed, relying on logical depth, which resonated with many viewers.

YouTube- Part 12 | Does God Exist? | Mufti Shamail Nadwi vs Javed Akhtar ...

Who Was the Actual Winner?

Declaring a "winner" in such a philosophical debate is inherently subjective, hinging on one's worldview. Neither participant conceded, and the event ended without an official victor, leaving conclusions to the audience. 

However, public opinion, especially on social media, leaned toward Mufti Shamail Nadwi. X posts highlighted his composure, structured arguments, and depth, criticizing Akhtar as unprepared or reliant on "baseless" emotional appeals. One user noted Akhtar "did not present a solid counter argument," while another poll suggested most viewers sided with Nadwi.

Analyses from outlets like The Quint argued against a binary framing, noting both debaters' shared North Indian Muslim roots and anti-right-wing stances, making it less a clash of opposites and more a nuanced exchange. Younger audiences, particularly Muslims, favored Nadwi, while older progressives backed Akhtar, revealing generational divides. Ultimately, if "winning" means advancing thoughtful discourse, both succeeded—but Nadwi's logical rigor gave him an edge in popular perception.

Impacts on Global Society, Especially in India

This debate's ripple effects extend far beyond the venue. Globally, it underscores the enduring tension between faith and reason in an increasingly secular world. With 10 million+ views, it promotes cross-cultural dialogue, encouraging viewers worldwide to grapple with existential questions amid rising atheism and religious resurgence. It highlights philosophy's role in bridging science and theology, potentially inspiring similar events in diverse societies facing identity crises.

In India, the impact is more pronounced amid rising Islamophobia and shrinking civic spaces under present governance. Hosted by a Muslim organization promoting integrated education, it serves as a defiant statement of intellectual freedom. The event reflects how progressive discussions are increasingly confined to Opposition-led or minority forums, as seen in some democratic protests. It exposes false binaries like "liberal vs. conservative Muslim," ignoring the community's diverse ideologies and experiences, from  jailed detainees to everyday activists.

Socially, it has sparked widespread discourse on public platforms, fostering generational and ideological debates within Muslim communities. Positively, it humanizes theological discussions, countering stereotypes and emphasizing shared concerns like Gaza. However, it risks deepening divides if weaponized by extremists, potentially fueling communal tensions in a polarized nation.

Should Such Debates Continue?

Absolutely—provided they remain respectful and academic. These forums encourage critical thinking, dismantle echo chambers, and promote tolerance in pluralistic societies like India. They allow for exploring profound questions without descending into hostility, as this one did. In an era of mis-information, such exchanges can educate and unite, countering polarization. Critics might argue they exacerbate divisions, but stifling them would only suppress intellectual growth. As long as moderated well, yes—let the conversations flow.

The Essence of Debate 

In essence, this debate isn't just about God's existence; it's a mirror to our evolving worldviews. Whether you side with Akhtar's skepticism or Nadwi's theism, it reminds us that questioning is the essence of humanity. 

The foundation of Islam rests on monotheism—belief in one God, Allah, the creator and sustainer—and the submission (Islam) to His will, revealed through the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, culminating in the Five Pillars: Shahadah (faith declaration ), Salah (prayer), Zakat (charity), Sawm (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage). Core tenets also include belief in angels, holy books ( Torah , Injil, and Quran) , prophets (including all prophets, Moses, Jesus and Finally Prophet Mohammed), the Day of Judgment, and divine decree. And  finally Paradise for good one and Hellfire for bad ones. 

While the Atheism is based on the rejection of belief in deities, stemming from skepticism, rationality, and a lack of evidence. It emphasizes empirical evidence, logical consistency, and natural explanations of the world, rather than faith or divine revelation. Its core principles include the application of critical thinking, demanding evidence for extraordinary claims (such as the existence of God), and finding meaning and morality through human experience, science, and compassion.