Does God Exist? | Javed Akhtar vs Mufti Shamail Nadwi

Once again, you will be given time for your closing arguments, and after that, the most important thing for this debate will be that you, and we, and the millions and billions of people watching on the internet, will have their questions answered. So, those of you who are present here, we will try to take some of your questions. We have set aside 30 minutes for that. This is how this 2-hour debate will be completed. There are two or three basic points that we need to keep in mind. We should not participate in any kind of slogan shouting. This is not a commotion because the whole world is watching, so we need to maintain composure. We need to set an example for people, that educated people, even while having agreement and disagreement, can speak to each other while holding differing opinions. Here, my professor from JNU, Mr. Purushottam Agrawal, is sitting, who taught us in class that the courage of agreement and the wisdom of disagreement, and vice versa, is very important. Secondly, this is not a debate about any one religion. This should be clear to everyone. This is not a debate to declare one religion great or another inferior. So, if anyone is watching or has come with this expectation, I want to assure you that you will only be disappointed. Regarding the excessive use of religious symbols in this debate, both these people, who appear serious to you now, are good people. They met for tea yesterday evening. They had a lot of fun and laughter, and a picture was taken of them hugging. This is proof that compared to the uproar on the internet, these two people have very amicably agreed to debate in a calm manner. The matters of Twitter are limited to Twitter. Elon Musk calls it X these days. And now, I will begin this debate by introducing these scholars, although they do not need an introduction, but perhaps, in journalism, we are taught to never assume. Science also says the same. Mufti Shamal Nadvi, an Islamic scholar and educationist, is the founder of the Wahiyan Foundation in Kolkata. He graduated from the prestigious Darul Ulum Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow. He is active in teaching and intellectual work on social media and public platforms. And he is currently pursuing a PhD from the International Islamic University Malaysia. The good thing is that along with his studies, he also creates travel blogs. We saw the blog in front of the Petronas Towers. With us is Javed Akhtar. Javed Akhtar is a poet, a lyricist. He also writes prose. He has written dialogues and songs for films. He is vocal about his scientific thinking or his declared atheism and talks about his rationality. Ladies and gentlemen, does God exist? Everyone is trying to find the answer to this question in their own way. Some call it the search for the God particle. Some call it the discovery of the Higgs boson. Some try to find the answer to how mass ultimately came into existence. What happened? What was there before creation, before time? And some say, how did the brain in which all these discoveries are happening evolve in the course of nature? I hope that today we will be successful in finding some answers to these fundamental questions. I would first like to invite Mufti Shamal Nadvi to the stage. Please come, sir. [Applause] A request from you, please start speaking. Everyone, please put your phones on light mode or silent mode. Please check once. Sometimes it becomes a distraction. All praise is for the Creator who created this universe with a purpose. Respected Mr. Javed Akhtar, Mr. Saurabh Dwivedi, and respected audience, thank you all for being here today. In today's debate, since we are going to talk on the topic "Does God Exist?", it is a topic for which there can be different standards for making any decision. Therefore, at the beginning of the debate, it is important that we understand which standard will be right and which will be wrong for today's topic. The first standard, which I think our respected Mr. Javed Akhtar will quickly gravitate towards, is science. Whereas, in reality, science cannot become a standard to directly prove or deny the existence of God. And what is the reason for this? I am not saying this. These are the people who are experts in science saying this. The National Academy of Sciences says, "Science doesn't have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God." Why? Because science is related to empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is related to our natural and physical world. Whereas God is a non-physical and supernatural reality. Therefore, you cannot check a non-physical reality with a tool whose job is to explore physical reality. Hence, in today's debate, scientific evidence will not be accepted in proving or denying the existence of God. The second standard could be revelation, that we prove whether God exists or not through revelation. But this standard is also irrelevant today. Why? Because revelation, in my opinion, is a source of knowledge, a valid source of knowledge. But in the opinion of our Mr. Javed Akhtar, it is not a valid source of knowledge. Therefore, in today's debate, I will not give any evidence from any religious scripture, so that it is not unacceptable to Mr. Javed Akhtar. The third standard could be observation. Like someone saying, "Show me God. If He exists, show Him," or "Give empirical evidence for God's existence." This is actually using the wrong tool. It is like Mr. Javed asking me, "Mufti Sahib, can you detect plastic using a metal detector?" Now, plastic cannot be detected. Therefore, plastic does not exist. No, you are using the wrong tool. Plastic is not detected with this tool. Therefore, I consider demanding empirical evidence for God's existence to be a childish demand, and our respected Mr. Javed Akhtar has moved far beyond this stage. Now, only one standard remains. And that standard is intellect, logic, reasoning. And this is the standard under which the existence of God will be proven or the existence of God will be denied. But because this is a very important and sensitive topic, the logical argument should also be such that it is definitive, not indefinite. It should be as clear as two and two makes four, which cannot be logically rejected. For example, we say, our respected Mr. Saurabh, he is a human being, and all human beings are conscious beings. Therefore, what is the conclusion? Our Saurabh is also a conscious being. Is this an indefinite argument or a definite argument? This is a definite argument. It is as clear as two and two. It cannot be logically rejected in any way. So, if today our Mr. Javed Akhtar gives any such intellectual argument and logical evidence for the non-existence of God that is also definitive, then I declare that I will certainly accept that evidence and consider it. But I also declare, as a prediction, that no one can present such a definitive argument. We will present arguments, and definitive arguments. We will present logical arguments. We will present arguments that the entire atheistic world cannot refute. Now, let's think of an example, a simple scenario. I request all the audience, we and you are on an isolated island. An island where no one has ever been before us. While walking, you suddenly see a pink colored ball lying there. What will be the first question in your mind? Why did this ball come here? How did it come? Why is it pink? It could have been any other color. Why is it in this shape? It could have been any other shape. Naturally, you will conclude that someone has made this ball with these specific properties and placed it here. Because you know that this ball did not necessarily have to exist. It could have existed or not. And if it had to exist, it would have existed in some other form, in some other color. Now, if you expand this ball, expand it, expand it, until it becomes the size of the universe. Tell me, will the question change just because the size has increased? Absolutely not. The question will still remain. Where did this universe come from? Where did it come from with these specific properties? Why did it come? Who made it? This question will remain valid at that time. But if we ask this question to Mr. Javed Akhtar, then because his worldview is atheistic, and not just his, but all atheists, and if you ask those who hold an atheistic worldview, "Where did this universe come from?", their answer will either be an argument from ignorance or dogmatic. Either they will say, "I don't know where it came from. Therefore, God does not exist." This is an argument from ignorance. Or they will say, "This universe formed by itself." This means that the ball should also have formed by itself. But this explanation will not be accepted for the ball, that it formed by itself. But it will be accepted for the universe. In other words, we can also call this dogma. Secondly, our Mr. Javed Akhtar will definitely give the example of the "God of gaps." And he will give the example that in ancient times, when lightning struck, people attributed it to one god, and when it rained, they attributed it to another god. They had no argument. This is not our worldview. This is not our worldview. Because knowing the interpretation of the processes of natural phenomena, how does that prove that God does not exist? I will talk about this further, God willing. You all will also see, and I expect, that our respected Mr. Javed Akhtar will also definitely give emotional arguments, which is a logical fallacy when it comes to deciding truth. Why? For example, he will say, "If God exists, why does evil exist?" Whereas I say, the existence of evil is an argument for God's existence, not against it. Because if God exists, we are all accountable to Him. And if we are accountable, then the existence of evil is necessary for accountability. Without it, we cannot be accountable. And if we are not accountable, then we will ask Mr. Javed Akhtar, "Tell us, then why is there suffering in this world? If there is no God, why is there suffering? And what about the feelings of those who have a desire for revenge after suffering, and they left this world like that? Will all their troubles go in vain?" Now, let's go back to that example: if someone asks me who made this ball, or who made this expanded ball? I will say, because this universe and all things in this universe are contingent. Contingent means that they depend on someone for their existence. So, obviously, this universe is contingent. And if anything is not contingent, then I request you to show me which thing in the universe is not contingent. Let us also consider and see. And when contingent things exist, according to the terminology of philosophers, we reach that place and that being which is called the Necessary Being. This is the Necessary Being whose non-existence is impossible. Because if it does not exist, then all things will not come into existence, and all these contingent things depend on it. Now, if you ask, "Then who made that being? What is its cause? Then what is its cause? Then what is its cause?" And it goes on endlessly. This is what we call the infinite regress of causes, which is a logical fallacy. Conceptually, infinity is possible. For example, counting numbers one, two, three, and so on. There are infinite numbers. I am not talking conceptually. Prove it practically in reality, whether an infinite regress of causes is possible or not. If it is possible, then we will accept it. Give an example. And if it is not possible, then only one option remains, which we call the Necessary Being. Such a Necessary Being that is independent. Because if it is dependent, it will not remain necessary. Such an independent being that is eternal. If it is not eternal, if it has a beginning, then it is itself contingent. Such a being that is powerful. Because actualizing the contingent requires power. Such a being that is intelligent and knowledgeable. Because this universe is precisely running according to specific forms and specific laws of nature. Thank you. Thank you, Mufti Sahib. [Applause] After these arguments, I would request Mr. Javed Akhtar. Would you like to speak sitting down? Yes. [Applause] First of all, I would like to give Mufti Sahib some good news: my knowledge of science is very limited. So, don't worry about that. But I have some common sense. Look, the concept of God is not a new concept. It has been there for centuries. Some religions might be 3000 years old, 4000 years old. But humans have existed in the form of Homo sapiens for about 10,000 to 12,000 years, and there have always been some religions. These religions were not of the ignorant. These religions belonged to a Greek society where great philosophers were born. These religions belonged to the Egyptians who built the pyramids. These belonged to the Romans, whose architecture and Senate, the first foundation of democracy, was limited, but it was democracy. These were done by them. So, their Jupiter, Ra, Zeus, they had as much faith in them as any religious person today has in their God. Before Christianity came to Europe, there was a religion called Germanic religion. It had a God, a wife, two sons, and a daughter. When Christianity came to Europe, that God, his wife, and the entire family left. So, if we look at history, God is mostly temporary. He has not always been there. And you say that the people who believed in them were ignorant, they knew nothing. That is not the case. They were very capable people in their time, and they did great things in their time. They were philosophers, scientists. But where did their religion go? Where did their Gods go? The Gods that people believe in today in the world, who knows how many years from now what will happen? We see in Europe, the churches are empty. So, things change with time. As far as religions are concerned, every religion asks one thing from you: faith. What is this thing called faith? What is the difference between faith and belief? It would be a very foolish thing for someone to say, "Sir, if God exists, show me." This is a foolish statement. I have not seen the North Pole, but I believe the North Pole exists. Why do I believe? Because if I live in this world, there must be a top to it. There are some people who have been there. Common sense says that this must be the case. There is evidence, witnesses, reason. So, this is not my faith. So, what is the difference between faith and belief? What religions ask from you, every religion asks for faith. Faith means that there is no witness, no evidence, no reason, no logic, no proof. But you believe in one thing. This is faith. Otherwise, it would be belief. If there were any evidence, any witnesses, then you would call it belief. Like my belief is that the North Pole exists. It is not my faith. Faith rejects all these conditions. So, what is stupidity? If I believe something for which there is no logic, no reason, no proof, no witness, no evidence, and I believe it. Then this is stupidity. Similarly, tomorrow I might believe that Elon Musk is my brother. I would be extremely happy and find great peace. But you ask, "Brother, why do you believe? What is the evidence?" "Brother, he is American, and you are Indian. Their race is different. You have never met." "Sir, look, this is my faith." Talk about this. Faith itself means that you cannot prove it. If you can prove it, then there is no need for faith. Then you will talk. You can debate as much as you want. Ultimately, every religion in the world rests on faith. And faith means a belief for which there is no evidence, no witness, no reason. Now, you say, "Why are you saying that who made this universe?" The amazing thing is that you said you went to an island and saw a ball. You did not say who made the island. You were only surprised by the ball. We were not surprised by the island. Islands exist. Similarly, this island, these stars, these galaxies, all are islands. They are creations. We take them for granted. We don't ask who made them. You didn't even ask about the island. What about my birth? Was I born by chance? Was I destined to be born, or was it a lucky sperm that stuck to someone? My birth is random. Randomness and justice, what you call justice, has nothing to do with nature. What you say, "There will be justice one day." Justice is a human concept. There is no justice in nature. If a lion eats a deer, it receives no punishment. If a storm comes and uproots green trees, the storms are not jailed. There is no justice in nature. Therefore, it is said that nature does not need justice. Nature is all one. Now, we say, "This food I ate, my eye did this to it, so it should be punished." That is a system. It is running like that. Nature is without justice. Justice is a human concept. So, whoever tells you, "I will give you justice," is a product of the human mind. This is not natural. This is not celestial. The concept of nature, the concept of justice. Brother, you meet. Now, you drive on the left. What is this? All truth, all goodness, all righteousness is driving on the left. Otherwise, what will happen? Either you will cause an accident, or you will kill someone, or there will be a traffic jam. Lies, dishonesty, bribery, all these are driving on the right side. Nothing beyond this. We have made this. Just as we have made driving on the left. This concept of justice is ours. It has nothing to do with nature. A lion eats a deer, is it jailed? Nothing. It doesn't exist. So, the religions of the world that promise you justice, from this it is known that they are man-made. This concept is not from anywhere else. Nature itself, some people say nature is God. But there is no justice in nature. And you promise that you will get justice after death. If I get it, I will be very happy. But I cannot believe it. Because I cannot generate faith. The very fact that religions demand faith. It means that they have no justification. It was good. Then, if any religion is in moderation, it must also instill some virtues in you. See, there is this benefit, that benefit. Alcohol is mostly used in medicines. And a survey was conducted in America about the longevity of whom. So, on one side...

Those people were those who did not drink alcohol at all, and on one side were those who drank a bottle of alcohol. The longest lifespan belongs to those who drink two packs of alcohol and eat food. But we consider alcohol bad. I also consider it bad. Why? It doesn't happen like that. Some things have habits that persist. In Aaj Tak, a person drinks milk. If you meet him after 10 years, he will still be drinking one glass. It's not like he drinks milk all morning. I haven't seen milkoholics. There are alcoholics. This is a tendency of religion that it grows. Just like cancer grows, just like alcohol grows. There will be some people who use it correctly. I am sure that our Mufti Sahib is also one of them. I was very happy to meet him. But how many people are there? Today you see the destruction in the world, how much hand do those people have who believe religion doesn't say this, maybe it doesn't say it, but when they drink this religion, they behave like this. If there is a little bit, then it might be a very good thing, but a little alcohol doesn't remain, there is a tendency in it. If there are two-three cancer cells in the body, the person will remain asymptomatic, but those two-three cells don't remain, they multiply. Javed Sahib, time is up. Time is up. The discussion is over. Actually, I didn't have anything else to say. [Applause] Yes, I am inviting Mufti Sahib for the rebuttal round first. Your rebuttal round one. You have seven minutes. Thank you very much, Javed Sahib. We were very pleased to hear your words. Do you understand? We enjoyed it. Okay, now let's logically... Actually, yesterday we had requested Mufti Sahib and Javed Sahib that the Hindustani language should be easily understood by everyone, and wherever you use difficult words, please explain them. Thank you. So, first of all, our respected Javed Sahib cited that God is mortal, many religions have come and gone, some considered Jupiter as God, some considered someone else. I say that whoever considered a contingent thing as God considered it wrong. It is not God at all. It is not God. [Applause] We are here to prove the Necessary Being. That Necessary Cause which is eternal, which is both everlasting and uncreated. We are not here to prove anyone else. Secondly, he said that faith and belief, this is a definition of faith that you have presented for the first time, or excuse me, you have not presented it for the first time. Richard Dawkins presented it for the first time. I know where this source is from. Epistemologically, you cannot differentiate between faith and belief like this, sir. Faith can be right, it can be wrong. Belief can be right, it can be wrong. Faith that is backed by logic, reason, and evidence will be true faith. And the faith you are talking about, that it is illogical and there is no reason behind it, then we are on the same page. We do not believe in that faith. Faith that has no logic behind it. No evidence. We do not believe. We believe in that faith which has logic and evidence behind it. So, belief can be right, it can be wrong, faith can also be right and wrong. So, today the discussion is not on the difference between faith and belief. Today, whether you accept faith or accept belief. Today, the discussion will be on what is truth? Whether true belief is right or true faith is right, and what is false faith and what is false belief? The discussion is on this. Secondly, he asked, what is stupidity then? If faith and religion are not stupidity, then what else is it? Because they demand faith, so stupidity, stupidity, what is it? I say stupidity is atheism. The reason for this is that you are walking on a street and you go into a garden and see written with flowers, "I love Javed Akhtar," and I really do, I love you, sir. So when you [Applause] reach there, upon reaching there, will you say, "Wow, what natural selection." What natural selection is this? No. This is precisely design. There is a designer behind it. Therefore, if someone is not accepting a common-sense thing that the universe is working so precisely, and we say it formed on its own. I think there is no greater stupidity than this. This is an irrational thing. [Applause] Then our sir said that you focused on the ball, not on the island. Hey, who made the island? I am giving the example of the ball to explain that. [Applause] And the ball is contingent, the island is also contingent. Both demand a Necessary Being. Further, he said that there is no justice in nature. We decide what morality is. What is justice? We decide, like in the driving seat, the traffic police. This was not said by any God. This is called false equivalence. This is a logical fallacy. You took the example of driving and traffic. This is subjective morality. You cannot impose subjective morality as an example on objective morality. Justice is objective morality. If you say there is no justice in nature, then the absence of justice is natural, so let nature be nature. Why are we striving so much to bring justice into the world? This is an illogical thing. An irrational thing. Therefore, many things are objectively evil or good, and many things are subjectively so. What is subjectively moral or immoral, we decide by social consensus or personal preference. But objective morality, which includes justice, which you have repeated many times, is objective. It is not subjective. If you say it is subjective, then my question to you is, if injustice is justified through social consensus, will you justify injustice? Secondly, he said that if you drink two packs of alcohol, it doesn't stay at that level, it increases. The same is the case with religion. If you drink two packs, it will increase. So this is an example that can be fitted anywhere. When you fit it on atheism, when you take two packs of atheism, it will increase and become North Korea. Thank you. [Applause] A [Applause] I am inviting Javed Sahib for the rebuttal of the first round. You have seven minutes. Please reset. I am happy that Mufti Sahib has also accepted that there is no justice in nature. So, anything that humans have not made does not have justice. Let me tell you one thing, please find out. These beautiful flowers you see in the garden, none of them are natural. All these flowers have been created through cross-breeding. The flowers in the wild are very ordinary. These flowers are made by humans. The ones you see in the garden and say "wow" are made by humans. They have been developed by cross-breeding different flowers and then cross-breeding them. They are not natural flowers. You will not see a rose flower in any wild forest. These are all made by humans. Humans have done many things. As for the rest, you have not answered one of my questions, which I am complaining about: what is faith? And why do you demand faith from me? You are logical. You have all the reasons. You have all the evidence. So why do you demand faith? That, brother, surrender and don't ask questions. No religion allows asking too many questions and forbids it, saying you will drown. Why do you stop? The reality is, what is human history? Human history is that there have been two types of people in the world. One who worshipped their ignorance. The other who struggled with their ignorance or laziness and found out what is. You are surprised today, "How did this universe form?" People were surprised, "When the sun sets, how does it rise from here?" And you are ready to believe in eternity with one step, why don't you take one step back? You go to it and say, don't ask where this power came from, it will always be there, so what will you believe about the universe? What's the problem? It has always been there. Or was it not? We don't know. And to say that we don't know is amazing. All religions in the world know everything. How was this world made? How will it be destroyed? What happens after death? They know everything. They didn't even know that dinosaurs existed before. Nobody knows. [Applause] No religious book in the world mentions dinosaurs. But they know everything else, like "How to Make the Universe in Four Easy Lessons" and everything else. Whoever knows everything is problematic. We should have this humility, this humility, to say that we don't know many things. But we should not worship them. We should not worship our ignorance. We should try to find out. The world you are sitting in, sir, this hall, this electricity, this microphone, the airplane you came in, the car you came here in, all these are made by people who asked questions. [Applause] This world in which you are comfortable today is made by those who asked questions, and at every stage, these questions were called abhorrent, wrong. Read history. There is a very interesting book by Batten in which he discusses religion and science, and since when religion has been against science, and to the extent that they were against the steam engine, and fatwas were issued by the Vatican. It's always like this. As soon as these right-wingers come to power in America, they, what do they call it, seed, what is it, not seed, not seed, but the research on the human body is stopped, Republicans don't allow it. Oh brother, what is this fear? Once upon a time, all these religious people were very angry that this human is trying to create a human. What's your problem? Let him create it. What is this fear? And all this that you are saying today, "It's impossible," how did it happen? I remember an anecdote. When I was in the sixth grade, I was very weak in mathematics. So a teacher was hired. He taught me one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. I cannot forget that day, Mufti Sahib. The day he explained what 1/2 is and what 3/4 is. I felt like my head would split in half. This man is saying that you walk into a wall like this. Today I laugh at this. So, the things that are beyond your comprehension today, and you are surprised to see them, there will come a time when they will seem ordinary, and it has happened. This is your human history. Don't make all these decisions so quickly. Have some humility, that brother, we don't know. What's the harm in saying this? How far does this universe extend? When did it start and until when will it last? We don't know. You have decided when it was made. According to you, it was made about 14 billion years ago. Before that, for thousands of crores of billions of years, what was God doing, sitting silently, just yawning? Then he got an idea, "Hey, let's do something, time will pass nicely, let's make a universe." Think about it, He is eternal, but the universe is not eternal. This is made, and what was before that? What was His work? What kind of talk is this? This is very easy. What we have slowly come to know today, 2000 and 2500 years ago, someone told you what it was, and you believed it? And since then, you have been believing what was said 2500 years ago. Everything has changed. Things are being solved. Science today does not claim, nor does any philosopher claim, that we know everything. Rather, it says that what we know makes us realize how little we know. So let us fight our ignorance, not worship it. Yes, time. Thank you. Thank you [Applause] so much. I am inviting Mufti Sahib for round two in the chain of arguments. You have seven minutes once again. Thank you. Mr. Javed Akhtar Sahib is repeatedly asking to explain the meaning of faith. Explain the meaning of faith. I have explained it. Faith can be right, it can be wrong. And today we are not talking about faith. We are talking about truth and "Does God Exist?". Does God Exist? Is this truth, meaning God exists or not? What is the truth between the two? Now you call it faith, belief, not my business. After that, you said that religion stops you from asking questions. I say, if it stops, it stops. I don't stop. Rather, ask questions. We move forward, we progress by asking questions. And that's why I am here today. But questions will not be only to God. They will be to you too. Questions will be to atheism too. Questions will not be only to religion. They will be to everyone. And today I will ask questions, and I hope you will answer. So far, you have not given any answer to the contingency argument. Okay, you said, why don't you say the universe is eternal? This is because it is logically impossible for the universe to be eternal. The universe is a contingent thing. It is bound by time and space. It is bound by time and space. Whatever is bound by time and space will be contingent. Whatever is contingent must have had a beginning. Whatever had a beginning cannot be eternal. This is common sense. [Applause] You said that no religious book mentions dinosaurs. Unfortunately, I have not found any mention of dinosaurs in any mathematics book so far. [Applause] So, does this mean that mathematics books are useless? No, that is not its topic. The topic of revelation and religious books is not to tell you how to make a cycle. It is not to tell you when dinosaurs existed. It has come to teach morality. It has come to tell about God. It has come to teach the reality of non-physical reality. Does religion stop science? It does not stop. If it stops, it does wrong. Religion stops scientism, in which our Javed Sahib is proficient. [Applause] There is a difference between science and scientism. Scientism is the belief that science and scientific methodology are the only source of knowledge. This is scientism. We reject this. We promote science. Brother, if you read our entire history, you will know. Anyway, that is a separate topic. After that, he used a word, "Vatican issued a fatwa." Vatican has no relation to fatwa. These are contradictory words. After that, he said that brother, we don't know. If you don't know, then clearly say you don't know, what's the harm in that? So, that's what I am saying, you say you don't know, but why are you claiming that God does not exist? [Applause] You say you don't know. Maybe He exists. Maybe He doesn't. But you are claiming. The moment you say God does not exist, this is a claim, and now the burden of proof is upon you. Just like it is upon us. [Applause] And why it is, I will tell you. Why it is, I will tell you. Philosophically, a claim is not just that a person makes a positive claim and a negative claim, and there is no burden of proof. For example, I say that there is no one in that room. I have made a claim of knowledge. There is no one in that room. I have made a claim of knowledge. Either I say I don't know, maybe there is, maybe there isn't. This is not a claim. But when I say there is no one there, or I say there is someone there, both are claims, and the burden of proof is on both. The burden of proof is on us too. I presented the contingency argument. Break it. [Applause] Last thing, he said, what was God doing 150 years before creating the world, or millions of years before? Oh, sir, anyway, I will answer. You are our respected personality. If you were not here, I would not have entertained this. [Applause] Time. "100 years before" or "100 years after," "before," "after," these are words related to time. Time itself began after the universe began. So, what was God doing before that? This question is logical. It is a fallacy. That is, you are asking, what was God doing before the universe was formed? Before time began, "before" is related to time. Time did not exist then. So, this question is invalid regarding God. [Applause] Secondly, the argument of contingency that I presented to you. You have repeatedly proved and are saying "God of gaps." See, science has done it through various means. I will explain this with a simple example. The gaps you are talking about, whatever science proves them to be, they will be contingent. Now, whether it is force, matter, or energy. Therefore, our question will still be valid until you arrive at the Necessary Being. And infinite regress of causes is not possible in the practical world. So, obviously, you have to stop somewhere. Wherever you stop, that is God. Secondly, you said, what was I saying? Which point? Just, just, just now. Yes, wherever you stop, that is God. Anyway, so time has been mentioned. God of gaps, sorry, or take an example of this. There is a car. A gentleman saw that the wheels of the car are fitted so well. The steering is in the right place. And the seats are so well designed. How precisely this car works. So, surely someone must have created it. Someone created it. Now Javed Sahib came and said, "Oh sir, open the bonnet. There is an engine in it. The engine is running this car. Hence proved, no one has created the car." This is illogical. This is irrational. You have proven the gap through the engine, but is it possible that the creation of the car and its creator become impossible? Is it possible that the question ends? No. You have filled the gaps with contingent things, and you have broadened our observation. Now we know more that this car's system is so complex. Earlier we understood less. Now the complexity has become even greater. Now we understand that our certainty has increased that surely someone must have made this car. This is the case with the universe. Science will always keep filling things of the physical world and will do so with physical things. Because empirical evidence is related to the physical world, you can never prove metaphysical reality through science. This is using the wrong tool. It is like trying to detect plastic with a metal detector, which is obviously not correct. Thank you. [Applause] Yes. This is round two of the arguments. Seven minutes.

First, I would like to request that you said that when the universe did not exist, then time also did not exist, nothing existed. How did it not exist? God existed. There was an existence of God, so He would also exist. It is not that nothing existed. God existed.

Now, regarding your statement that you said, "Sir, prove it." You have logic, and I also have logic. It is not my responsibility to prove that God exists. Bertrand Russell said something very good. Bertrand Russell said something very good. If I claim that a teapot is revolving around Mars, it is not your job to prove that there is no teapot. It is my job. I have made the claim. Religious people make the claim that God exists. Why should I prove that He does not exist? Until you convince me, I will not believe. It is your responsibility. It is not my responsibility.

Secondly, you are saying that these gaps, whenever these gaps challenge any religion. Whenever such a thing comes up, there is an uproar. When they challenge any faith, all these signs have been tried to be stopped by religion in different places at different times. This book, "Religion and Science," by B.N. is worth reading, you will like it. It is history; science's relationship with religion is just this.

Now, let's think if this existence, religion, and belief in God makes humans better. Then do one thing, take a map of the world and mark where religion is more prevalent. Whether it is Latin America, the Middle East, the Far East, or the areas of India where religiosity is high. Keep that map aside. Now, take another map: where is injustice, repression, violation of women's rights, oppression, dictatorship? The map will be the same.

So, tell me, what is its method of use? Tell me the method of use of God. Even for a small medicine sold on the street, you are told its method of use. Has anyone benefited from its use? All the corrupt countries, corrupt societies, commit all their atrocities in the name of God. They do wrong, they do right. What do I have to do with it? It is known from its use. You might have seen a bottle of whiskey sometime. It is red in color, and the light on it looks beautiful. What harm is it doing to anyone? Its use is wrong. Therefore, you dislike it. Its use is wrong. The use of this concept itself is wrong, and it has always been wrong. Look at human history. Look at today. Look at India. Look at the world. What is happening? How are they using it? Are the people of faith fair? Are they just, who believe in their Gods? What kind of people are they? They give justice to people. They become better humans. So, what is the benefit of this medicine? If it is benefiting a lot, then I will use it. But I do not see any benefit from this medicine.

Let me tell you one more thing. If a person is religious and a good person, I respect him a lot. Because I believe that it is more difficult for a religious person to be good than for me to be good. Brother, everything has a limit. You can run this much, not that much. You can lift this much weight, not that much. You can see this far, not that far. Similarly, common sense says that you also have a quota of goodness. Now, if you go to your place of worship in the morning and worship, when you come out, you feel that you have done a very good deed. A large portion of your goodness quota has been spent, which will not benefit anyone. I don't go, so I have to feed someone, help a widow. How do I consume my quota? You religious people use your entire quota in extremely useless tasks. Even after that, if a little decency remains in you, then wow, what a thing.

I am really liking this point that both scholars acknowledge time and are completing their arguments and sometimes their speeches before time and sitting on their chairs. This round of argument is complete. Now it is round two of rebuttal, and after that, there will be cross-examination. No, your argument is over, sir. In our school syllabus, the story "Panch Parmeshwar" written by Premchand is taught. Rest assured. I will not let you miss any rounds. Round two of rebuttal, Mufti Shamal Nadvi Sahib.

Actually, the real problem, the real problem is that Javed Sahib does not have a clear concept of God. He said that God existed before the universe, so there must have been time then, because the universe itself is a part of time. We believe in God, the Necessary Being, and it is necessary for Him to be timeless. Because He is the creator of time. When He created time, how could He be subject to time? When He created space, how could He be in space? If He is already bound by time and space, then what has He created? Therefore, this question is wrong: if God existed, then there was time. Absolutely not. We are bound by time, not God. We belong to the physical world. He is a metaphysical reality.

Secondly, he gave an example of a teapot revolving in the air, and perhaps he cited Bertrand Russell. Anyway, this is the problem. The problem is that we cannot differentiate between things. The example you gave is imagination. And what I am proving is logical necessity. If you come to imagine, you can do anything. There might be a pink elephant on Jupiter, a unicorn. Do it. What difference does it make to the universe? You cannot prove logical necessity by that. I am talking about that Prime Cause. I am talking about that Necessary Being without whom the existence of this universe is impossible.

Secondly, religion challenges science, and so on. This is not our topic at all. If I talk about this, then my time will be gone. Our discussion is not about religion. Science does not lag behind religion, and especially our worldview, at least does not lag behind science. It condemns scientism. I have already explained this.

Secondly, you said, "Take a map of the world." I did this homework, and I took a map of the Middle East and a map of Europe. These are religious areas and these are liberal and atheist areas. I found that the highest number of rape cases are there. I found this according to a UN report. I am not making this up. That in European countries, among working women, 81% of women face sexual harassment at work. This is not happening in the Middle East. They are religious people, that's why it's not happening.

Secondly, you said that it is very difficult for a religious person to be good compared to us being good. So, this means that besides God, you have no standard for good and bad. I would like to discuss this on the conversational style discussion and segment. Thank you very much.

This is round two of rebuttal. You have 5 minutes, and after this, we will start the cross-examination. If you wish, you can also answer the questions he asked in the rebuttal. Yes, yes. First of all, this point that this example is not wrong. It is wrong. He has already dismissed us. He says the matter cannot be solved by intellect. You cannot reach it by logic. This is a metaphysical thing. Metaphysical is a strange word. No one knows its exact meaning. So it seems like something big. Oh brother, what is metaphysical? Tell me. Stand up. This is a word that is used anywhere. When you are talking about something and arguing with me, do not tell me it is metaphysical. Prove it to me logically. And if you do not talk logically, sir, and say it is metaphysical, then what are you talking about? We had a conversation. And saying that time did not exist before, then why do you say it has always existed and will always exist? There is always time. So how do you say it has always existed and will always exist? Always means some time. If there is no time, then how can it be always?

Anyway, it will remain. Now I see. You said that rape happens more there. So, we see one thing: how is this world, over which the Absolute Sovereign, without whose will not even a leaf moves, is Omnipotent, running? And what is the state of this world? 45,000 children under the age of 10 died in Mecca. Children die of hunger in the black pot and die of diphtheria. Diphtheria is a strange disease. A membrane starts forming in the throat, the child turns blue. A poor child, because he is near. This is the Absolute Sovereign who can do whatever He wants. That is why you pray, "Do this for us, do that for us." So, it means He interferes in day-to-day life. And He is watching this. If He is indeed there, for the sake of discussion, when I see the world, no respect arises in my heart for Him. What are you doing? You are completely all-powerful. Omnipotent. Omnipresent. You must have been there in Mecca. You are everywhere. You were watching how the child was torn apart. You were watching. And you want me to worship you, and you exist. Oh man, our Chief Prime Minister is better than this. He cares a little. Amazing. Who are you worshipping? Even if He exists, this world is full of injustice, oppression, tyranny, violence. And do not say that He is watching and will tell one day. If He is watching and does not interfere, then why do you pray? You say, "Get this work done for me." This means He can intervene. He can get you a job. He might not get it for another person. But He will get your work done because you prayed. So, when He can get you a job, get a daughter married, get a son a green card, then at least stop these children who are dying. Do something. I do not see any owner of this world. Its omnipotent ruler. And this world is running like this. I would wish that it were not so. If it is so, it is a matter of great shame. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, two rounds of this debate and two rebuttals have been completed. Now the most important and most difficult round is beginning: the cross-examination. Now there will be a test of the gentlemen's courtesy, and we have allocated 16 minutes. Who would you like to ask the first question? Yes, absolutely. You spoke first. Please take the microphone. Please remove the dice from here. Yes, yes, I will speak. Can we remove these dice quickly? Just push the dice back a little so that the people sitting on the right and left can see. Just remove them. In the meantime, you all also prepare your questions. Keep in mind that I will take questions from here. You have to raise your hand, state your name, and complete your question in a maximum of three sentences. Many people give speeches instead of asking questions. We need to avoid that today. Yes. Mufti Sahib, your first question is for 16 minutes. We will take questions from both of you. Yes, yes, thank you very much. What you just said was very important. I would like to discuss it further, but since this is the segment for cross-examination, the very first question to you is: I have been explaining the contingency argument to you for so long, and I have been explaining it with logic. Sir, tell me, do you consider an infinite regress of causes possible, or do you consider the existence of a Necessary Being correct? Because there can only be two options. Please tell me.

See, I will be honest with you. Firstly, I do not understand the word "contingency" properly. And the English words you used just now also seemed a bit difficult and complicated to me. So, can you ask the question in simpler language? Absolutely, I can. Yes. The contingency of everything in the universe means that it is dependent on something for its existence. Anything that is dependent cannot be independent, so it must have some cause. So, what do you think: is it an infinite regress, meaning cause after cause after cause, endlessly continuing? Because if that were the case, we would not even come into existence. Logically, this is a universally agreed-upon matter. Universally agreed-upon. Okay, sorry. We agreed that if a difficult word comes up, its meaning will have to be explained. So, infinite regress is not possible. So, somewhere you have to stop at such a necessity. No, there is no need to stop. Who said you have to stop? You stop at God. You do not stop. You say He has always existed. He existed from the time when time did not exist. Where do you stop? That it happened then. You do not say, "Why can't we believe that the universe, and rather the multiverse, has always existed, and it is formed?" We have something here called a black hole, which swallows it back, then explodes, then expands, and in this, our existence is insignificant. We have a lifespan of 50-60 years, and in the billions of years of the universe, we were born for very absurd reasons. So, thinking about its causes and why it is so? It is dependent. We are seeing this. What do we know? Think about it: where is this expanding universe expanding? Where is it going? And why is it expanding? You already created it. Stop, brother, we have enough. Why is it expanding? And which universe? Which I see through a telescope is two billion light-years away. I have nothing to do with it. 2 billion years, meaning if I travel at 80,000 miles per second, I will reach there in 200 million years. What was the need for this? This world, this universe, was created for humans, the noblest of creatures, right? So, all this, this term was not understood. There was nothing special to understand in it. This ultimate, it is said that this entire universe, this world, is made for humans. Oh, all this is for humans. Why, sir? Right? Absolutely. But this does not mean that if you do not know the reason behind something, then there is no reason. This is called "I don't know," but it is not my responsibility. He said that correctly. Bertrand Russell. You dismissed it as a joke, saying, "Brother, you are making a claim. Why should I say it is wrong? You prove it." It is not my responsibility. I did not say it. You prove that it is correct. Do you want to ask any questions in response to the argument from contingency? Do you want to ask a question to Mufti Sahib? Because this is the round of cross-examination. You were talking about faith earlier? I would like to ask that God has made all the revelations, not just in one religion, but in many religions. There are different revelations. Somewhere there are some things. There are contradictions as well. Somewhere you can do something, somewhere you cannot. It is not that everyone's code of morals is the same. So, what is this story? Now, you see, sometimes I feel that if in this football final, with millions of people, then it is covered by TV for billions of people, if a divine voice had come, "I am God," then everyone would have heard it right now, and it would have been heard on TV as well. What is this secrecy? Give us some solid evidence in front of us. You say, "How will this universe be created?" What problem will be solved by this? I will ask you, "How was God created?" Why shouldn't I ask? How was He created? Rather, He is much more intelligent than the universe. Much more than the universe. You say He has always existed, and I will believe it. Secondly, He is Omnipotent, meaning He can do whatever He wants. He can get you a job. He can get you married in a good place. He can make your neighbor lose a lawsuit. He can make you win. He does all these things. Please, the microphone a little. How is He running this world? How is this world running? Are you not surprised by this, or will there be justice after the Day of Judgment when this child who has been torn apart by a bomb will have died? Will he get justice then? Now, shall I answer? Yes, yes. That is why I am coming to you. First of all, you talked about revelations and scriptures. I can talk about this, but not today because time is short. We will discuss this some other time. I am ready to talk about that too. This is setting the stage for round two. Does God Exist? Round Two. Today, the topic is God's existence, so I will entertain your questions related to that, and I will also ask. You said that you have not proven it, whereas the argument from contingency is a fundamental argument. Tell me the meaning of contingency. What is your meaning? Contingency? Contingency means every existence that is bound by something. Every existence or every thing that is bound by something for its existence and is bound by it, needs it, depends on it. So, obviously, it has some cause. This is a matter of intellect. You talk about reasoning. I am doing the same. Secondly, you said that it is so many billion light-years away, what do I have to do with it? Then, in my opinion, you should not say, "I think, therefore I am an atheist." You should think. Do not just think within a limited scope, but think outside of it. You asked a third question. You asked two or three questions together. Do not do such things, or some people will object to you. You can think anything; you have permission for this. No, I have it. Yes. You asked a question regarding the problem of evil, and you are repeatedly using the word "Omnipotent God," "All-Powerful God." This is precisely what needs to be understood: what is the concept of God? The problem of evil, in reality, is based on two assumptions. If you understand these two assumptions, then this problem will cease to be a problem. You will understand this argument and see that it collapses. Point number one, that is, your very first false assumption, is that God is merciful and omnipotent. Injustice is happening in the world. But you should understand that according to our worldview, God is not only omnipotent and merciful but also all-wise and all-knowing. There is wisdom behind every action of His. It is not necessary that that wisdom is understandable to you or me. If you are making a judgment based on what you understand, this is an argument from a limited perspective, and this...

We accept this principle in our world, in our life, in daily life. When we go to a doctor, and they give us medicine, we don't say, "Until you have as much knowledge and wisdom as you do, why did you give this medicine? Until then, we will not accept this." We don't say that. We acknowledge their authority. Why? Because we know they are knowledgeable. They are wise. They have more knowledge and more wisdom than us.

Tell me, sir. No, no, there is a big difference between a doctor and God. A doctor is educated. First, I will listen to him. Second, this is not the answer. Sir, please, if you start speaking to the entire audience, then there is no point in the debate. You mean to say that because you believe in a doctor, you believe in God? Is this example an argument to explain to you? If you have no objection to this, then the simple thing is that if I believe that an omnipotent being has a plan, and that these children dying is part of His plan, then I don't want His plan. His plan is not... this is what needs to be understood. Experience. Well, you haven't fully heard my point yet. I said your entire argument is based on two false assumptions. I have explained one false assumption. The second false assumption is that there is no good reason for the existence of evil in this world. Whereas we have some reasons. We have some causes. If there were no evil in this world, how would you define good? If there is no injustice, how would you understand justice? If there is no darkness, how would you understand light? [Applause] Very good. Listen more, there is still more to come. I really liked this point, sir, that until there is rape, the honor of women... You haven't heard my complete answer. Until children are murdered, you have respect for the innocence of children. You haven't heard my complete answer. What a point you have made! You haven't heard my complete answer. Listen. Listen to me. I told you one thing. The second thing is that we have come into this world for a test. We are being tested, and everyone is tested in a different way. And if evil exists in this world, then that evil is the means for developing noble human qualities within us and for progressing in various fields. And if there were no evil in us and in this world, tell me, what would be the meaning of a test? If I give my students MCQs and provide only the correct answers and say your test is over. This is meaningless. If we have come into this world for a test, then obviously both good and evil exist. [Applause] So, if both good and evil exist, then this evil is also created by God. Yes, it is created by God. But, well, that's good. Yes, absolutely. So, for now, the majority in the world is evil. So, God actually seems to be on the side of evil to me. Not at all. The majority is with them. What are you saying, brother? Any judge, whether it's your own household where you are the head, or your organization that you run, will you keep evil to prove that others are righteous? Listen to me. Is this argument itself wrong that until there is evil, a righteous person will not seem righteous? If the examiner is giving wrong options, is the examiner evil? The one who selects the wrong option will fail. The creator has created evil, but He is not evil. Listen to me, sir. Let me complete, sir. The creator has created evil for testing. He is not evil. Evil will be that, it will be whoever chooses it. The one who makes a knife is not wrong. The one who misuses the knife is wrong. [Applause] How is rape misused? Rape is the result of human free will. How is this mic, this rape misused? Now listen to me. Now listen. Yes, I am telling you. How? I am telling you. I am telling you that the evil that exists in this world has many ways. One way is human free will. Now, if a rapist is raping, it is not God's fault. He is misusing his free will. He should be punished. And that is why hell is made. This free will is also a big issue. When you do something bad, or something bad happens, it is said that it is free will. 7 billion free wills are moving on this planet. 7 billion free wills. And if one person kills me with his free will, then I died by God's will, or because of his free will? Is my death in God's hands or in the hands of this person with free will? God has created the system of free will, and by misusing that system, someone is killing you. Misusing it, he kills me. Now, who is responsible for my death? That person is responsible. That person. So, to say that and he will be punished. So, now you proceed to decide that Allah, or God, sorry, not Allah. God alone gives life, God alone gives death. This is wrong. Absolutely not wrong. Yes, no, the system was created by Him. The system of death and life was created by Him. You are contradicting yourself. You just said that a person killed you with free will. He was given free will, and he misused it. 7 billion free wills are moving on this planet. And you want me to only focus on God? Do I have to look after these 7 billion free wills or not? They are causing destruction, and destruction is increasing. Absolutely. So, if you tell me, you tell me, if God does not exist, for example, then how will you decide evil? That is, how can you define evil objectively without God? Define evil. See, there are two types of animals in the world. One lives alone in the jungle, and one lives in groups. Whoever lives in a group, whether it's your foundation, or any club, or any political party, or any unit, you will have to make rules for interaction. That is, people will decide. People will decide. If people decide that raping someone is right, will you justify it? No, your foundation has become that people will decide evil. No, no. [Applause] Oh, there are groups in the world that consider rape permissible in certain circumstances. I will not go into detail. You also know. These ISIS people, what did they do? So, what did they do? It has nothing to do with God, sir. I asked a simple question: how do you define evil? Come back. Yes, you can only live together if you develop some principles in which everyone's basic protection, everyone's basic right is there, and everyone gets some comfort. This is how any organization with more than one person functions. If you mess this up, there will be chaos, loss, and destruction. And if you take a home, there is a husband, a wife, children, a mother, two sisters, a brother. Now, you need a system to live together. And there should be trust in each other, concern for each other, help for each other. Such a life, sir, your point has come. You are saying that people will decide what is right and what is wrong. That is, the majority will decide what is right and what is wrong. Oh brother, absolutely. If the majority says that genocide was right, as it was with Nazi Germany, will you justify it? [Applause] At that time, at that time, your question, close after that. At that time, how many people on the planet considered Hindus to be right? Good. The majority of the planet decided, not society. The majority of the planet believes in the existence of God. Why don't you believe? [Applause] This, hello, hello, hello. This round of cross-questions ends here, and it's great that it has been fragmented in this way so that the mercury going up comes down. Yes, the majority of the planet believes in God of other religions. You don't. You are talking about the majority. You are saying that evil and good will be decided by the majority. Whatever the majority does will be right. As you people have decided, let's follow that format. Brother, I trusted good people and decided on moderation. Yes, you have 5 minutes. Closing argument. After that, we will take questions from the audience. After Javed Sahab's closing argument. Okay. Time starts. Thank you very much. Our topic is "Does God Exist?" I had prepared so academically for this. I thought I would give many arguments. But due to lack of time and Javed Sahab repeatedly going off-topic, I had to entertain that a bit. On "Does God Exist?", I could only give one argument. There are many arguments, and they are definitive arguments, and he did not entertain or refute my argument in even one round. Not in a single round. Not even in one round. And sir, your closing argument will come now. Let me tell you. Argument of Contingency, sir. I have told you many times what contingency means. How can I explain it to you? Listen. How easily can I explain it? I don't understand. You can say your contingency in Urdu. You complete your point. Last four minutes. Second thing, just a minute, please, ma'am, can I talk? Second thing is that you did not answer this, and second, you did not give any definitive argument for God's non-existence. You are only talking about religion. Religion was not our topic today. Today, our topic was... You went from religion to ISIS. Brother, what is our connection to that? We condemn them. And what is its connection to God? If someone is doing wrong, if someone has killed someone, if someone has raped someone, they should be punished. And you have no strong foundation of morality. You said that the majority will decide, society will decide, and that will be right. I said, then you will call Hitler right. No, no, no. The majority of the planet's society will decide. So, the majority of the planet believes in God's existence. You are saying this is religious. So, you have no strong foundation for objective morality. If there is any foundation for objective morality, it is only God, God, God. Yes. [Applause] This was the closing argument of Mufti Shamael Ladvi Sahab. Now we have, yes, I, yes. [Laughter] It's great that both people have complaints with the moderator and are speaking. Brother, let's also give them applause. Now, my point. Yes, you have 5 minutes, Javed Akhtar Sahab. This is your closing argument. Reset the time. See, there are many things. The definition of God in any religion in the world is that He is potent. He is present. He is just. He is kind. He loves you, and so on. When I look at the world, I don't see any supreme power here that is doing anything for the betterment of humanity, saving the weak, helping them, pushing back the oppressor. I don't see it. Not in history. One, if He exists and is watching this spectacle, then His existence or non-existence is the same. Two, when you say that the universe has contingency, I see you have used the word. Then how can this be? And immediately you surrender and say, obviously, its creator must be ten thousand times more complicated than it. You have no objection to that. He is timeless. He was there before. Time came much later. You are ready to accept all this. For which you have no proof. You have no reason. What is your definition of religions? Beliefs of those who believe in gods. This has consistently been proven wrong. Meaning, you say that in Aristotle's time, everyone was ignorant. They also believed in God with the same certainty, which is no longer the case. This will also not remain. You write it down, and its signs have started appearing in the world. Could this debate have happened 100 years ago like this? We have brought you this far. So, [Applause] Sir, sir, oh, they don't need help, brother. He is a self-sufficient person. Why are you helping him? Sorry, sir, sir, sir, please, please. So, all these things are in their place. This is a package. No single person is such that they only believe in God. A lot of paraphernalia comes with it. Different paraphernalia come. They have always created chaos in society. I offer you a straightforward offer: there are 10 important beliefs in the world. You believe in one, and not in nine. In the nine, you are an atheist. You look at the nine reasonably, like me. So, 90 religious people are also 90% atheists. They don't believe in other gods. They believe in their own god and call others wrong. If you stop believing altogether, you have a 10% chance of being right and a 90% chance of being wrong. My advice is, if you stop believing, you will have a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance. You will gain 40% by becoming an atheist. [Applause] This is an outdated idea. It is ending. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen. These things you call metaphysical, this and that, you give them respectable terms. These are for those who knew neither physics nor metaphysics. They have given them to you. Yes, thank you both very much, and now the final round of this conversation will begin. Does God Exist? This debate between Mufti Shamael Nadvi and Javed Akhtar Sahab. You will all raise your hands. I will decide from here, and we have the microphone. Is there only one microphone for the audience? There are two microphones, one on this side and one on that side. Okay. So, first, our colleague Maria, Maria Shakil ji, ask your question. Please wait a moment so that the camera frame can be on you. You have TV practice. Yes, Nadvi Sahab, I believe in God. I am starting from this premise and telling you this. I believe. But there are some questions that Javed Sahab has raised, and you should answer them. First question: for years, small children have been dying in Gaza. If God is merciful, as we believe Allah Ta'ala has great power, then why are those children dying? Second point: if you talk about contingency, even all Muslim countries combined cannot save the children of Gaza. Because if they wanted to, because Allah Ta'ala rules over them, rules over everyone, then why doesn't He save them? Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. You did well to mention this. I will try to explain it better. See, as far as you said that the children of Gaza are being killed. See, there are two worldviews. One is the atheistic worldview, and one is the theistic worldview. Children are dying in both worldviews. But our worldview says there is recompense. They say their death, their dying will go in vain, there is no recompense for it. Because in their view, there is no concept of afterlife or Allah or God. You asked the question: God is merciful. Why doesn't He stop it? I explained that this is a misconception among people that God is only understood as merciful and omnipotent. These are not the only two attributes of God. God has many attributes. Among them is Al Hakeem. Among them is, sorry, All-Wise, All-Knowing. Therefore, if someone is suffering in this world and God is not stopping it, it is because humans have been given free will. Just like this, listen, listen. Just like this, if a doctor is giving an injection to a small child, they are experiencing pain. From their limited perspective, this is wrong, and the doctor is bad. But when you look at the broader picture, you and I have only one pixel. We only see that killings are happening in Gaza. But we don't know how much recompense they will receive for it. God has the complete picture. So, you can never judge the whole picture from one pixel. You, you, would you like to add something to this? Do you want to say something? I am saying this. Brother, you have given a very good justification. You should send this to the Prime Minister of Israel. He will be very happy. You are giving a justification. If God does not exist, then why are children dying? You tell me. Yes. He is asking the question: if you do not believe in the existence of God, how do you interpret the death of those children? Brother, this world, the powerful people commit injustice. So, this is a good deed. In your opinion, nature is based on injustice. Oh, my brother, you are talking about nature. I am talking about humans. So, when I was talking about humans, you started talking about nature. Examination. Now, if you don't let me speak, that's a different matter. You speak. I, I don't need cross-examination. Let me speak. The point is that human society can only live together if they live with love, unity, and respect for each other. Otherwise, it is not possible. Humans cannot live alone. There are some people there who commit fouls. These fouls have always happened in history. Today, what is happening is happening. It is very bad. It is very oppressive. It is very tyrannical. You say that these children will get compensation, or this is a "mussalahat" (plan/wisdom). An injection is given for health. You are saying that these children being torn apart is an injection. It is a test. It is a test, and in that test, they will receive such recompense that is beyond your imagination. You are testing a three-year-old child by blowing them up with gunpowder. Wow. He is not doing it. God is not blowing them up. Israel is blowing them up. So, condemn him. Let's take the next question. Let's take the next question. Professor Purushottam Agarwal. Mufti Sahab, a request to you: at least a little bit of the mic close. A religious and philosophical tradition that considers the universe itself as ultimate. Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma. This is from the Chandogya Upanishad. And it completely rules out the existence or necessity, in your words, the necessity of a creator. The creation itself is the creator. So, one minute, please. Second, you are repeatedly saying that God is also wise, all-knowing. So, if wisdom includes tolerating all the sins and atrocities in the world, then it means that if I oppose Him with free will, then God's wisdom...

And there is a contradiction in my free will. Because when I am opposing whatever is happening in Gaza, then I am opposing God's will or God's wisdom. You take the answer, because God's wisdom is, one minute, Saurabh, please, sir, this is one, one sentence, it is God's wisdom that whatever is happening in Gaza is happening. I am opposing it. So I am going against God's wisdom. One question, second, no, no, you have already, sir, you have asked two questions, but give me two answers first. You said, listen, listen to me, according to you, it is happening correctly, right? No, no, it is not happening correctly. I am telling you what is happening. Please sit down, I am telling you what is happening. Let me complete, please. One second, guys, one second. Look, it is like this, after a lot of deliberation, it was decided that some rules should be made so that a time-bound discussion takes place, and brother, you are doing a very important job, but by coming into the camera frame, you are messing up that job. Okay, guru. Now I had to vent my anger somewhere. Sorry, no anger. Yes. So the professor asked questions, you answer them. And please, everyone, take care a little, brother. Keep the questions concise. You asked two questions. The very first one was that we have this concept that this universe itself is a necessary being. Creation itself is the creator. How irrational is this? That I will exist later, but I am also existing now. Meaning, at the same time, we are existing and not existing. This is not true. The second thing you said was that if in Israel, sorry, forgive me. If Israel doesn't exist, in occupied Palestine, if [praise] if children are being killed in occupied Palestine due to free will and God is not stopping it, this is a contradiction, tell me this. If in an exam, a child is writing a wrong answer, listen, the examiner can stop them if they want. Why are they not stopping? Is this a contradiction or not a contradiction? Sir, no, sir, this is, what is this question of yours? On the mic, on the mic, mic, give it. Free will is given for testing, for accountability. If there was no free will, then you would say we have been made robots. I cannot represent my position. Whatever your position is, by my free will, by my human wisdom, I oppose the atrocities happening in Gaza. Absolutely, you should. According to you, I am opposing God's wisdom. Absolutely not. What is happening, God's, absolutely not. Absolutely not. His being killed there in Gaza is the result of the misuse of humans. It is the result of the use of free will. God does not command this. He stops it. This is the problem, isn't it? The concept is clear for you. No, no, brother, you told me that giving an injection causes pain to the child. This injection, sir, if you make such rhetorical statements, then there is no problem. This is a rhetorical statement. This is not a logical argument, sir. I am sorry. I am sorry. The last 30 minutes are going to be very difficult. Yes, Mufti Sahib is sitting in front. Give him the mic. Yes. Tarun, keep the mic with you. You know the camera frame. Yes. First of all, congratulations to both. Sir, please tell your name. You live in Chicago, America, I remember that much. Tell us. Yasir Nadeem Al-Wajdi is my name. Javed sir, I have a question for you regarding the infinite regress. It's a hypothetical scenario. For example, if you, sir, please keep the mic a little closer. Yes. If you are a poet because you had a teacher who was a poet. And he was a poet because he had a teacher who was a poet. And if we keep going back in the past like this and never stop, then forgive me, you can never be a poet. But you are a poet. Your being a poet exists. This means that you have stopped somewhere. So my question is, do you consider the infinite regress of causes a logical fallacy or not? Yes or no? I do not consider them a logical fallacy. But my problem is that when I don't consider it, I will continue with this logic which is not a fallacy. You stop somewhere. You say, how was this ball made? How was this island made? How was this ocean made? How was this earth made? And suddenly you stop at God. Once you don't ask, brother, the one who made them must be even more complicated than them. How was he made? You have satisfied yourself about that. He has always been there. So if you consider him to have always been there, then accept that the universe has always been there. What is the problem? Then we do not come into existence. Yes? We do not exist. Oh, sir, sir, sir, why not? I will tell you, please, please. Just like I gave the example, your poem would never have come into existence if it kept going on forever. Yes, mic, mic, I think. The concept of infinite regress has not been clarified. Let it be. Let's move on. Okay. Yes. Please also consider the moderator. No, no, you have considered it. You have considered it. Gauhar Raza Sahib is here, he also wants to ask a question. Turn on the mic from below. First of all, let me say that I am ashamed of those children who were killed in Gaza. [Praise] Because they were killed while we were alive. But I was even more ashamed when I felt that Mufti Sahib was justifying it. Absolutely not. I felt very wrong, I could be wrong. I am asking a question. Question, I disagree with Javed bhai. Look, if, look, one second, sir, wait, wait. Oh, you, let me say my piece first. If the audience decides, then there is no point of a moderator. My request to all of you is that this debate is between two people. One is Mufti Sahib, the other is Javed Sahib. For the last hour and a half, these people have been presenting their arguments. You may agree or disagree with them. My teacher taught me that there should always be room for disagreement in a debate. If I respect you a lot, Gauhar Sahib, the wonderful books you have written, the scientific temperament, but my request to all of you is that if you comment on what these people have said, then neither will there be punctuality nor discipline. You ask your question, whatever comes in that question will come. I disagree with Javed Sahib. That's why I am asking a question to Javed Sahib. Your question is to Javed Akhtar Sahib, and my question is that Javed Sahib has used logic many times, saying that there is logic in science and no logic in religion. My opinion is that there is logic in religion too. But the basis of that logic is that you stop, which Javed Sahib has repeatedly mentioned. Meaning, when you come to the concept of God, when you come to the concept of God, you stop. And asking questions in this is forbidden. The question is, does Javed Sahib agree that the logic of science is different and the logic of religion is different? Tell me, sir. Look, there are three things. There is science, there is logic, there is reasoning. And there is nothing, there is faith. There is belief. I am not convinced by the logic of belief. Explain it to me with reasoning, with logic. I am ready to believe. What harm will it do to me? But I cannot go by belief. Belief means that you accept it without asking questions. No. After saying all sorts of scientific things, you stop at the existence of God. You surrender. I am not ready to surrender. That's all. Yes. The gentleman sitting in front. Give him the mic. Brother, you were asking, right? Brother, yes, no, no, I, thank you. Yes. Your name is Asim Iftikhar. Asim ji, please ask. Sir, it is a question for Javed sir that in your closing statement, you said that the future of religion is not going to last long. But I can see that a study by Oxford University, done in 2011, which was conducted by 50 academicians, states that faith in God is inbuilt in human nature, which we call instinct. And they say that if anyone thinks that they will end religion, then it is their misunderstanding. So what do you say about these studies? Okay, I do not agree with them. Who are those professors? What data do they have? They must have data. What data can it be? It cannot be data of the future, can it? They might have data of the present. You have heard data from 100 years ago, I haven't heard data from the future. So today their opinion is this, and it will be their opinion. Okay. There are all sorts of opinions in the world. But I believe that with time, humans are becoming more and more reasonable and logical. Today, look at the percentage of non-believers in Western Europe. Very high. Churches are empty there. So ultimately, humans will not be able to believe something for a long time, whether right or wrong, that does not appeal to their mind, their intellect, their logic. If they are saying so, they might be from Oxford, they might be from Cambridge, what do I care? Their data cannot be of the future. Yes, Deepak. Yes, please ask. I will come to the back side as well. I will send the mic there for two-three years. Yes. Javed Sahib, a question for you. Namaste. Oh brother, sir, if you people have to decide, then 200 people will decide. No, sir, please don't do this, sir. Sir, everybody has a right, sir. But we can only take selected questions. Sir, these young people are also here, so their, you are as young, brother, you are young, aren't you? They are saying they are also young, sir. Let them claim their youth themselves. Yes, Mufti Sahib, you are young. Yes, please ask. Oh brother, sir, my question is, you haven't even asked yet. Yes, just one question for you. Like theists have their own social gatherings, five times a day. Today Christmas is coming, Holi, Diwali, Eid. What are atheists offering? I mean, I want to come from their shop to that side, but I am not attracted. What are your social gatherings? They are saying that religious people, people of different religions, have many festivals and celebrations. Now, let me tell you something. Historians are also sitting here. Mridula ji, you tell me if it's correct or not. Constantine, a Greek Roman emperor, decided 400 years after Christianity came that he would become a Christian. His entire state would be converted. In those days, it was like this, the king who adopted a religion, the people also adopted it. Because he had gone bankrupt and needed money from the rich Christian merchants of the Mediterranean coast. So he said, "Let's become Christians." So he told his minister, "Brother, this is history, let's become Christians." He said, "Sir, we will become, no problem. But there is one problem: the pagan festival that runs from December 17th to December 25th, the pagan festival, that festival will stop. Because we have become Christians, it won't happen." So the children will be very sad, the public will be very, they enjoy it a lot, especially the 25th. He said, "Yes, you are right. When was Jesus Christ born?" They said, "Sir, it was in April." No, cut it. It was on December 25th. This is the reality. And 400 years after Christianity, they brought it from April to December. And because there was a festival here. Now you celebrate it comfortably. All these festivals are religions. Everyone needs an entertainment department to run their company. So these religions have taken over these secular festivals. These were seasonal, harvest festivals, farmer festivals. You took them and gave them a religious color. These, these did not come from religion. You, you, look at us. We are secular. We celebrate Eid. We celebrate Diwali. We celebrate Holi. We celebrate Christmas. The biggest Holi of the Mumbai film industry happens at our house. The biggest Eid happens at our house. That is our social, it is our heritage. It's not like we will throw the baby along with the water. These are good things. Keep them. They are useless. Throw them away. Yes. Hello. Yes. My question is for Nadvi ji. As you said that God is beyond time, and God is such a complex thing that the human mind cannot understand it, and God has also given free will on Earth. So why are you wasting your time talking about God? We should be talking about how to improve society. God tells us how to improve society. I will answer you now. You said that He does not exist in time. So, no, my question is, as you said, God is a very complex thing. I did not say complex. These are your words. The word complex is not suitable for God. Why? Because complex are things that are objects. God is not an object that you can test in a laboratory with instruments. Oh, it's very complex. No, it's not an engine of a car. It is a philosophically necessary being, a being that is simple. Yes, you can know all its wisdom and everything, that is not possible. Because He is all-wise, and you are not all-wise, and He is God. It is not necessary that He tells you everything. My question was not this. My question was that when God is so beyond this world that He has given free will on Earth, we all humans have free will, and what happens in society, we will decide. So, will we not decide? We will not decide. God, God's essence, His existence is beyond time and space, but He is testing us, and that same God has told us what to do and what not to do. So obviously, we will listen to that God. Yes. The gentleman sitting behind with glasses. Give it to the lady standing there. Yes. Yes, please. See, I am trying to go everywhere. Yes, give her the mic. Yes. Hello, sir. I am not omnipresent. I am bound by time, and I will try as much as I can. Yes, tell your name. My name is Ujjwala. I am a student at Delhi University and I am from the Student Federation of India. My question is for Mufti ji, that sitting in this hall, in this room, we can talk philosophically about the morality of rape, but the reality is that women go through rape in their daily lives. And we cannot just look at numbers like this, because how many women are there in countries where you are saying that cases are low, who have access to file a case? How many women are working, who have the freedom to work in those countries? This freedom has come in Europe. These rules have come in Europe, so we are able to talk about it today. Yes, job. You said that we can talk philosophically about this locked in a room. But what is happening in reality? What is happening on the ground level, which is very wrong, and they are suffering. I agree. Very wrong is happening, and what is wrong must be stopped, and why it must be stopped, why it is wrong? We have an objective foundation for it. They do not have an objective foundation for it. What I am trying to say is that wherever injustice is happening, wherever injustice is happening to women, or their honor is being looted, or they are being hurt, and not just women, but any human being is being wronged, then standing up against it is morality that has come to us from God. Otherwise, Javed Sahib is saying that the majority will decide. So the majority can change at any time. You have a slight misunderstanding. If this came out of my sentence, or if I said it, then I take back that sentence. That was not my intention at all, that the majority should decide. If the majority decides, then in the world, you said this sentence. I accept it. We will recap later. Oh, one second, I am giving my explanation. The appropriate thing is that we all know in our hearts what is good and what is bad. We know good. Even those who do bad deeds know that good is good. This was the question, Hazrat. Then where did this morality come from? Cross-examination. Yes, yes. Morality comes from the desire to live together. Meaning, whatever is said or done while living together will be accepted. Otherwise, you cannot live by rules unless there is morality among people. Otherwise, it will be chaos. How do you know this? Yes. We have seen. Where morality has collapsed, we see. Where, brother? Why is work done in the world if wrong is happening? You are talking about epistemology, I am talking about ontology. I will try to bring both these people for tea. You can cross-examine there. You are snatching the audience's right now. Brother, you are just people, you are. And this brother, yes, they will come there, they will come. Yes, sir, they will come, they will come. Sir, my name is Lakhur Rehman, and I am a student at Aligarh Muslim University. And as far as I know, sir, you are also a product of Aligarh Muslim University. I am also a nightingale from the same garden. Yes, sir. So I am very happy to know that I will meet you. Sir, my question is that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's view was to search for God's existence within the scope of intellect, not to deny it completely. Sir, how will you define it? No, no, you tell them. No, the question is, you are proving God's existence. So you have denied it. That's why my question is coming. Didn't Sir Syed say exactly this, that you cannot prove God's existence with intellect? Didn't he say that, brother? He said you can, and it has been done today. To search or to prove, with intellect, related to intellect, not with intellect. Oh, listen to the question. It cannot be with intellect. Didn't you say that? It can be with intellect. Oh, he is saying the same thing, brother, you are saying it can be. That is a different question. If, sir, look, take the youth, such a wonderful university. Oh, oh brother, listen to me. Speak into the mic so that the millions watching can hear. Give him the mic. Oh, we will give it, you wait. Yes, sir. My question was that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had a view that God's existence should be searched for within the scope of intellect, not denied completely. This was his concept. But my question is, how do you define it? How will you explain it? I want to know from you. That you are a product of Aligarh Muslim University. I searched a lot within the scope of intellect. I did not find it. Yes, that person with glasses over there. Yes, give it to them. Yes, yes, ask quickly. Only five minutes left. It's ending in five minutes. Yes. Assalamualaikum Mufti Sahib, and my question is for Javed Akhtar Sahib. What is your name? Oh brother, you are asking me. Faiz, Faiz, Faiz, Faiz, please ask, Faiz Sahib. So my question is that currently atheists are using the problem of evil argument against Muslims, right? That there is so much evil in this world, and against Muslims, here, against atheists, against atheists. Yes, correct it a little, brother. The whole effort was that the discussion should not be confined to any one religion. Yes. So basically, the argument is that so much evil exists in this world, and if there is an all-good God, why doesn't he stop it? But this question has a hidden assumption that evil exists in this world. Now, how can atheists ontologically prove that evil exists in this world? Let me explain a little. No, no, sir, sir, you listen to them. No, no, please don't. I want to explain ontologically. No, no, we understand, sir. Let him answer. Okay, ask the question. What was it until now? Let me add a little. You are the guru, so when we do round 13, we will seat you on the stage. Yes, yes. So, yes, quickly. So, look, according to atheism, everything is formed randomly. Everything is atoms and molecules. The only difference between a stone and me is that we are different rearrangements of atoms and molecules. Now, if a person cuts a stone into two pieces with a sword, or cuts me. According to atheism, it is the same. There is no evil and good according to atheism. Yes. Yes. Okay, Faiz Sahib's question is that even if we try, we cannot ask a wrong question. It is a life form, and a life form has feelings. Meaning, a life form can hear, see, taste, feel. So the quality that has come into this bubble is also in animals, and in humans. So obviously, if it gets hurt, then because it has that sensitivity, it will feel pain. A stone does not have that sensitivity. So what kind of question is this? If cutting a stone does not cause pain to the stone, why would cutting you cause you pain? Sit down. Yes, next question. Yes, please ask, please ask. Yes, Javed Akhtar Sahib. Oh brother, you are all leaving Mufti Sahib. Are you all after me? Come on, brother. You ask how God can exist when children die in Gaza. Yes? You asked how God can exist when children die in Gaza, and you also mentioned the rise of atheism in Europe. But the same events are also leading many atheists and non-believers to turn towards faith. How do you interpret this contradiction where suffering pushes some away from God, yet brings others closer to belief? Shall I tell you something? The world is not perfect anywhere. There are flaws everywhere, child. One minute, I will tell you. Look, there are flaws, weaknesses, bad things everywhere. But if you look honestly, where is the world most stable? Where does a common citizen have rights? They can speak. They can work according to their will. They can express their opinion according to their will. They can speak against the government. They can speak about those in power. They can speak against the capitalists. You will find this in Scandinavian countries. You will find it in Western Europe. I am not saying they are perfect. Absolutely not. There are many flaws there too. No one is perfect. But in countries where, look at Latin America, look at the Gulf, there you will definitely find that rapes do not happen. What is the need for rape? Buy them and keep them at home. What is the need to rape on the street? But listen, listen, listen. But the reality is that there is no freedom of expression, of speech. Yes. This is the last question for Mufti Sahib. Yes, madam, give her the mic. Thank you. My name is Manisha, and I have come from Haryana. I want to ask Mufti Sahib something. You are repeatedly contradicting Javed Sahib, saying you said this, you said that. But you are also speaking based on assumptions. What proof have you presented for God's existence? Let this question remain separate for now. Who is an atheist, who is not. And secondly, what you said briefly, that man uses his free will. But in the use of that free will, God has given everyone this permission to use the most heinous and the worst possible ways. You listen to people. You believe in free will, don't you? Or do you say there is no free will? You believe, don't you? So now you have no explanation for this: if a person is using that free will to do wrong and gets away with it, living a good life, there is no recompense for it. In our worldview, the person who does wrong will get recompense, meaning their bad reward, and the person who does right will get the right reward. Therefore, free will is such that God has given a limited time. It's not that He has given freedom to do whatever you want forever. The time will come when the exam time is over, then the result will come. During the exam, you will not be told forcefully. Oh brother, one question for Mufti Sahib. Madam, Mufti Sahib, same, wait a second. You, you, I ask Mufti Sahib only one question: if what is happening is happening by free will, and one day on the Day of Judgment, justice will be done in the hereafter, etc., etc., then why do people pray? Praying means that He still has this department, that in my daily life, you can interview, you can get me a job, you can get my son a green card, and 45,000 children are dying, and you don't stop them. No. So are you saying that oppressors are never caught in this world? Oh, whatever punishment there is, the children cry. Absolutely. See, in my opening statement, I said exactly this: Mr. Javed Sahib, it is just an emotional argument. This is an emotional argument. I have explained the reason behind it. What is the wisdom behind it? I have explained. I am telling you gentlemen from the stage so that your conscience is a little burdened that you have to maintain order. The time was set, and that time is over. You listened with great patience. I am very grateful to all of you. If these two scholars wish, then someday we will have Round Two, Round Three of this conversation. This is the beauty of humans, that they remain engaged in debate and discussion. You all showed great patience. Thank you very much. With this, this conversation ends here. I will tell you one thing: this entire debate is over. Now, Mufti Sahib and other Mufti Sahibs, I am going to have food with all of them. Very good. Where from?