A high-profile public debate on the existence of God between Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi and noted writer-lyricist Javed Akhtar unfolded in Delhi, quickly turning into a major point of discussion both inside the auditorium and across social media platforms.
The event, centred on the timeless and deeply personal question, 'Does God exist?', drew a large audience and featured sharply contrasting worldviews. While both speakers presented their arguments with conviction, one brief exchange during the debate stood out, triggering widespread online attention.
Moment of Pause During Cross-Examination
Mufti Shamail Nadvi was speaking in favour of the proposition, “Does God Exist?” while Javed Akhtar took the atheist position, arguing against it. The discussion moved briskly until the cross-examination segment, where the tone briefly shifted.
During his questioning, Mufti Shamail framed his argument using English philosophical terminology. Javed Akhtar appeared momentarily uncomfortable and puzzled, asking the Mufti to clarify the meaning of the terms being used. The exchange, captured on video, has since circulated widely on social media, fuelling debate well beyond the venue.
Philosophical Terms That Triggered the Exchange
Mufti Shamail questioned Akhtar on whether he believed in the possibility of an “infinite regress of causes” or accepted the existence of a “necessary being.” He also repeatedly urged Akhtar to address the philosophical argument of contingency.
Akhtar candidly acknowledged that he did not fully grasp the terminology and requested that the questions be explained in simpler language. Following this, Mufti Shumail broke down the concepts in more accessible terms, allowing the discussion to continue.
What the Concepts Refer To
The phrase “infinite regress of causes” describes a sequence in which every event is caused by a preceding one, with no clear starting point, extending endlessly into the past.
The idea of a “necessary being,” meanwhile, refers to an entity whose existence is not dependent on anything else, something that exists by necessity rather than by chance or external cause.
The argument of contingency builds on this distinction. It proposes that since everything observable could have failed to exist, there must be a necessary being that explains why anything exists at all instead of nothing.
While the debate itself moved on, the brief pause over philosophical language has continued to resonate online, turning a fleeting moment of clarification into one of the event’s most talked-about highlights.