The debate on the existence of God between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shumail Nadvi represents a serious intellectual confrontation between atheism and belief in a Supreme Authority. It is not about religion versus religion, nor about culture or identity. At its core, it is about whether human existence can be fully explained without acknowledging God.It was held on dec 20,2025 under the auspices of India today in India.
Javed Akhtar articulates the atheist position by questioning divine presence in a world filled with suffering and inequality. He argues that pain, injustice, and unanswered prayers weaken the idea of a caring God. These questions resonate with many modern minds, because they arise from real human experiences. However, his argument rests on an assumption that God must act according to human expectations. When those expectations are not met, God is declared absent. This approach measures the infinite by finite standards, which itself limits the strength of the atheist claim.
Mufti Shumail Nadvi’s response is far more comprehensive in explaining human reality. He does not deny suffering. Instead, he places it within a broader framework of purpose, moral responsibility, and human limitation. His argument is grounded in a fundamental observation. Human beings, across all eras and civilizations, instinctively recognize a higher authority. This recognition is not taught first. It emerges naturally, especially in moments of helplessness. In fear, loss, and gratitude, humans turn upward. This universal behavior points toward an objective truth, not a collective illusion.
The existence of God is supported not only by revelation, but by reason itself. Every effect demands a cause. The universe, with its precise order, balance, and laws, cannot logically emerge from nothing or blind chaos. To deny a First Cause is to accept an infinite chain of causes, which reason itself rejects. A Supreme, uncaused Cause becomes not a belief of faith alone, but a rational necessity.
Atheism relies heavily on human reason, yet reason itself has limits. It cannot explain why moral values feel binding, why conscience judges us even when no one watches, or why humans consistently search for meaning beyond survival. These realities make sense only if there exists a higher moral authority. God is not a product of fear, but the explanation for why morality, purpose, and accountability exist at all.
The most powerful argument in favor of God lies in human nature. Across history, humans have always worshipped, prayed, and sought help from a higher power. Civilizations rise and fall, sciences advance, philosophies change, yet belief in God remains. This persistence cannot be dismissed as coincidence or conditioning. Humans do not universally crave what has no reality. Just as hunger points to food and thirst points to water, the deep human longing for God points to His existence.
In this debate, atheism raises questions but fails to offer a complete worldview. It explains doubt, but not purpose. It describes suffering, but not meaning. Belief in God, however, provides a coherent understanding of life, one where human struggle has value, morality has authority, and existence has direction.
The exchange between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shumail Nadvi ultimately reinforces a timeless conclusion. While human reason may question God, human nature continually recognizes Him. The enduring need for a Supreme Authority, present in every age and society, stands as a strong affirmation that God does exist, not as an abstract idea, but as an essential reality woven into human existence itself.
0 Comments