Table Of Contents

Explore the contingency argument, human suffering, and timeless questions that left everyone thinking.

A must-read breakdown of this viral clash!

Hey everyone, it is great to connect with you here at THOUSIF Inc. – INDIA.

We have been following some of the most fascinating discussions happening around faith, reason, and life’s biggest questions.

Just a couple of weeks ago, on December 20, 2025, New Delhi witnessed something truly special, a calm, respectful, yet intensely thought-provoking debate titled “Does God Exist?” between renowned lyricist and outspoken atheist Javed Akhtar and respected Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi.

If you have not seen the clips floating around social media yet, you are in for a treat.

This conversation has gone massively viral, with millions of views and people from all walks of life weighing in.

Some call it a win for logic, others for emotion, but honestly, it is the kind of exchange that makes you pause and reflect, no matter what you believe.

Let me walk you through what happened, break down the main ideas in simple terms, and share why this debate feels so relevant today.

A Quick Background On The Two Speakers

Javed Akhtar needs no introduction to most Indians.

He is the legendary poet, lyricist, and screenwriter behind timeless Bollywood songs.

Over the years, he has been very open about his atheist views, often speaking out against superstition and organised religion.

He believes the world runs on natural laws and evidence, not divine intervention.

On the other side was Mufti Shamail Nadwi, a young and articulate Islamic scholar known for his clear, logical explanations of faith.

He represented the theistic side, arguing that God does exist, with patience and depth that many viewers appreciated.

The debate was moderated beautifully, keeping things civil even when the topics got heavy.

That alone made it stand out in today’s polarised world.

The Heart Of The Debate: The Contingency Argument

Mufti Shamail’s main case rested on something called the contingency argument.

Do not worry, it sounds fancy, but it is actually pretty straightforward once you unpack it.

Here is the idea in simple words:

Everything we see around us, you, me, trees, planets, even the entire universe, is contingent.

That means it could not have existed.

It did not have to be here.

Your life depends on your parents, their lives depended on their parents, the Earth depends on the Sun, and so on.

If everything is dependent on something else, how did anything start existing in the first place?

You cannot have an infinite chain of dependent things going backwards forever; that would not explain why anything exists at all.

There has to be something that is not dependent on anything else.

Something that exists necessarily, on its own.

That “necessary existence” is what believers call God, the ultimate cause that makes everything else possible.

Mufti Shamail explained this calmly and repeatedly, drawing from centuries-old Islamic and philosophical thinking.

Many online commentators felt this was the strongest logical point of the evening and that Javed Akhtar did not directly challenge the infinite regress problem.

Javed Akhtar’s Powerful Counter: The Reality Of Suffering

Javed Akhtar did not spend much time engaging with the technical side of contingency.

Instead, he went straight to the heart of human suffering.

He asked tough, emotional questions: If an all-powerful, all-kind God exists, why do innocent children die in wars? Why is there hunger, disease, and terrible injustice? Why didn’t God save the children of Gaza, or prevent natural disasters that wipe out entire communities?

For Akhtar, the existence of so much pain and unfairness in the world makes the idea of a loving, omnipotent God very hard to accept.

He argued that humans created the concept of God to comfort themselves in difficult times, but reality shows no clear evidence of divine intervention.

These points resonated deeply with many viewers.

Even people who lean towards faith admitted that suffering is the hardest question to answer.

Comparing The Two Approaches Side By Side

To make it easier to follow, here is a simple comparison of their core positions:

Aspect	Nadwi’s	Akhtar’s
Why does anything exist?	Everything is contingent and needs a necessary cause (God)	Science explains “how,” but “why” may have no answer
Infinite chain of causes	Impossible – must end in a necessary being	Not directly addressed; focus on observable evidence
Problem of suffering	Free will, life as a test, justice in the afterlife	Disproves a kind and all-powerful God
Evidence for God	Logical reasoning (contingency)	Only physical, observable proof counts
Tone and style	Calm, philosophical, structured	Emotional, relatable, questioning

Both sides brought something valuable.

The Mufti offered a strong intellectual framework, while Akhtar reminded everyone of the raw human experience that faith must address.

Why This Debate Matters Today

In a time when religious conflicts make headlines and atheism is growing among younger generations, conversations like this are rare and precious.

There was no shouting, no personal attacks – just two thoughtful people sharing very different worldviews.

The debate also highlighted how philosophy is not dead.

Ideas from thinkers like Ibn Sina (Avicenna), who developed the contingency argument over a thousand years ago, are still shaping modern discussions.

Trivia

Did you know the contingency argument is not exclusive to Islam? Similar versions appear in Christian philosophy (Thomas Aquinas) and even some Hindu thought. It is one of those timeless ideas that keeps popping up across cultures!