There was discussion on the existence of God. This discussion took place between lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadvi. It is located in New Delhi constitution Held in the auditorium of the club. Excerpts of this discussion are viral on social media. This discussion lasted for about two hours.
Javed Akhtar presented his side during this discussion organized by the news platform ‘The Lalantop’. He cited the Gaza war. 70 thousand Palestinian civilians have been killed in this. Akhtar cited the moral contradiction between human suffering and an omnipotent deity. He said, ‘If you are omnipotent and omnipresent, then you should be present in Gaza. You must have seen children tearing pieces. Still you want me to believe you.
Javed Akhtar quipped that our Prime Minister is better than this. Let’s take some care. During this, Akhtar kept raising questions on the violence done in the name of religion. He said that why is it that everything comes to a halt on this idea of God. Why should we stop all questions? What kind of God allows children to be blown up? If it exists, allows it, then it is better not to exist.
What did Mufti Shamail Nadvi say?
After Akhtar, Mufti Shamail Nadvi replied. He put the responsibility for this directly on humans. He said that God is the creator, he has created evil. that is not bad. Those who abuse their free will are responsible. He said that violence and rape are the work of humans, not of gods. Neither science nor scripture can serve as a common yardstick in the debate on God.
He said that science is limited to the physical world. The definition of God is different from all these. The scriptures cannot convince those who do not accept revelation as the source of knowledge. Scientific explanations eliminate the need for God. Discoveries in physics or biology explain how the universe works, not why it exists. He told Javed Akhtar that if you do not know then do not claim that God does not exist.
To this Javed Akhtar replied that his position is to accept ignorance. No philosopher or scientist claims complete knowledge. Humans must resist absolute answers.
‘Unless there is no evidence, there is no argument’
There were also arguments between the two regarding faith and belief. On this, Akhtar said that belief is based on evidence, logic and testimony. He said that when there is no evidence, there is no argument. There are no witnesses. Yet you are asked to believe. So that is faith. He warned that such demands discourage asking questions. The debate also took place on morality and justice. He said that morality is a human creation. Not any characteristic of nature. He said, ‘There is no justice in nature.’
