Does God Exist? (officially titled An Academic Dialogue: Does God Exist?) was an academic debate held on 20 December 2025 at the Constitution Club of India in New Delhi. Moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, the event featured Indian poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Shamail Nadwi engaging in a structured discussion on the philosophical question of the existence of God.
The nearly two-hour exchange addressed themes such as faith, reason and science, morality, free will, and human suffering, and was conducted in a formal academic format. Beyond the arguments presented by the participants, the debate attracted widespread public attention and commentary, generating significant media coverage and discussion across political, religious, and intellectual circles in India and internationally. The event was noted not only for its content but also for its reflection of broader contemporary debates on belief, skepticism, and the role of religion in public life.
Background
In August 2025, media reports stated that the West Bengal Urdu Academy postponed a literary programme featuring poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar following objections raised by several Muslim organisations, including the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. TOI reported that the objections were raised on the grounds that some of Akhtar’s comments had hurt religious sentiments, while India Today reported that the protesting organisations alleged that he had spoken against religion and God; Rediff also cited his publicly stated atheist views.[1][2][3]
The Hindu reported that the Wahyahin Foundation was among the groups that opposed the invitation extended to Akhtar, citing his publicly stated atheist views.[4]TOI reported that Shamail Nadwi, founder of the Wahyahin Foundation, stated that the group had not issued any threats and had instead invited Akhtar to participate in a debate on the existence of God.[2]
According to The Indian Express, the exchange subsequently took the form of a formally organised academic debate held in New Delhi in December 2025, centred on the philosophical question of the existence of God.[5]
Format and moderation
The debate was moderated by Saurabh Dwivedi of The Lallantop, who framed the discussion as an academic exchange rather than a confrontational debate. According to Millat Times, Dwivedi laid out rules requesting participants and the audience to avoid slogans and personal attacks, and emphasised that the discussion was not intended to promote or criticise any particular religion.[6]
The Chenab Times reported that the debate followed a structured academic format, including opening statements, rebuttal rounds, and a moderated question-and-answer session, and maintained a civil tone despite sharp disagreements between the speakers.[7]
Arguments presented
Shamail Nadwi
According to Millat Times, Shamail Nadwi argued that neither empirical science nor religious scripture could function as a universally accepted standard for proving or disproving God’s existence. He maintained that science is confined to the physical realm, while scripture presupposes belief in revelation. Instead, he grounded his position in philosophical reasoning, particularly the contingency argument (cosmological argument), asserting that the universe depends on causes and therefore requires a necessary, independent being to explain its existence.[6]
Nadwi further contended that scientific explanations address how natural processes function but do not resolve the question of why the universe exists. On moral philosophy, he questioned whether ethical standards can be determined by majority opinion alone. Addressing suffering and evil, he emphasised human free will and moral responsibility, arguing that acts of violence and cruelty arise from human choices rather than divine intent.[8]
Javed Akhtar
Javed Akhtar approached the debate from an atheist and rationalist standpoint, questioning the permanence and universality of religious belief systems. He distinguished between belief grounded in evidence, testimony, and reason, and faith that requires acceptance without proof, stating that such faith discourages questioning. Akhtar maintained that morality is a human-created framework developed to regulate social behaviour rather than an inherent feature of nature.[6]
A central theme of Akhtar’s argument was human suffering, particularly the deaths of civilians in conflict zones such as Gaza. He questioned how the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God could be reconciled with the continued suffering of children, arguing that such realities pose a serious challenge to traditional notions of divine justice. He also rejected the idea that skeptics bear the burden of disproving God’s existence, asserting that the responsibility lies with those making the claim.[9][10]
Public and media reaction
General media coverage and public response
Several commentators interpreted the debate as part of a broader philosophical and political discussion rather than a simple confrontation between belief and disbelief. Writing in The Wire, political theorist Saroj Giri argued that the positions articulated by both speakers reflected underlying assumptions about entitlement, morality, and human suffering, suggesting that the apparent opposition between theistic and atheistic perspectives was less absolute than it appeared. He situated the exchange within wider contemporary debates on modernity, consumerism, and ethical responsibility, linking it to broader questions of faith, skepticism, and human agency in conditions of conflict and inequality.[11] The debate received extensive coverage across Indian and international media outlets and generated significant discussion on social media platforms. Reports noted polarised public reactions, with supporters of both perspectives engaging in wider conversations about belief, skepticism, morality, and the role of religion in public life.[12]
Commentary and critical perspectives
Several commentators and academics described the event as an example of civil disagreement in an increasingly polarised public environment, emphasising its focus on dialogue rather than confrontation. Observers situated the exchange within broader discussions on religion, secularism, freedom of expression, and democratic discourse in India and beyond.[13][14]
Media attention also focused on a remark made by Javed Akhtar during the debate in which he compared the actions of India's prime minister favourably to the idea of divine intervention. The comment attracted significant online attention and was widely circulated on social media platforms.[15]
Hindi- and Urdu-language media framed the debate as part of a broader public engagement between atheistic and theistic viewpoints, while cautioning against portraying the exchange as a definitive victory or defeat for either side.[16][17]
Some commentators questioned the broader relevance of framing the exchange as a debate on the existence of God. Writing in The Indian Express, political theorist Yogendra Yadav and journalist Mohammed Wajihuddin argued that such discussions risk diverting attention from more urgent social and political concerns, while acknowledging the debate’s civility and popularity.[18][19]
Scholarly and interpretive responses
Islamic scholar and social media commentator Yasir Nadeem al Wajidi described the exchange as part of a broader global conversation on belief and reason, arguing that public engagement with questions of God and faith continues to hold social relevance beyond the immediate positions taken by the two speakers.[5]
Other commentators defended the relevance of the exchange, arguing that public debate on the existence of God remained socially significant in contemporary India, particularly amid challenges to scientific rationality, secular values, and democratic discourse.[20]
Some scholarly commentators interpreted the debate within longer intellectual traditions. Writers situated the exchange within Islamic traditions of reasoned debate, including Ilm al-Kalam, and contrasted metaphysical reasoning with moral and rhetorical critique, viewing the discussion as reflective of differing philosophical frameworks rather than a resolution of the question itself.[21][22]
Further commentary placed the debate within wider civilisational and ecological discussions, linking it to questions about modern rationalism, development, and ethical responsibility.[23][24]
In interviews following the debate, both speakers reflected on its aftermath. Nadwi reported receiving messages from young people and non-Muslims expressing renewed interest in religious and philosophical questions, while noting that no independently verified data supported broader claims.[25] Akhtar later reiterated his atheistic position in media interviews, linking his skepticism to questions of human suffering and moral responsibility.[26]
Social media claims and fact-checking
Claims circulated on social media suggesting that some viewers converted to Islam after watching the debate. These claims included assertions that a specific number of Hindu families had accepted Islam through Nadwi’s Wahyain Foundation. However, subsequent fact-checking reports stated that such claims were false and fabricated.[27] A clarification issued on behalf of the Wahyain Foundation denied that any such conversions had taken place, and noted that no verified data existed to support the circulating figures.[28]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
