Does God Exist? Javed Akhtar और Mufti Shamail Nadwi के बीच LIVE बहस | Saurabh Dwivedi

I welcome you all to this very important debate in the Constitution Club. My name is Sourabh Divedi. I am an editor of India Today Hindi Magazine and Lallan Top. And I am also the moderator of today's debate. Before this debate, the topic of which is Does God Exist, Where does God exist? academic debates. I will tell you how the structure of this debate will be. First of all, the young scholar, Mufti Shamayal Nadweeji will present his arguments to you for 10 minutes. of 7 minutes and then Rebuttal Round 2 will be of 5 minutes. After this, questions will be answered from each other.

For this, we have fixed the time of 16 minutes. Now, it depends on the nature of the questions, how many questions will be there. That is why we have kept a time limit. And after this, in the last, 5 minutes will be given to both given 5 minutes for their closing argument.

And after that, the most important thing for this debate is that you and I, and the millions of people watching on the internet, will have their questions and answers. So, you who are present here, we will try to take some of your questions. We have set a time limit of 30 minutes for that. This way, this two-hour discussion will be completed. There are two-three basic things that we have to take care of. We don't have to participate in any kind of slogans. This is not a joke.

Because the whole world is watching, so we have to set an example. We have to set an example in front of people that educated people, even if they are coincidental and not coincidental, can talk to each other with agreement and disagreement. Here, my JNU professor, Purushottam Agarwal, who has taught us in class, that the courage of agreement and the wisdom of disagreement,

and its right and wrong of it is also very important. Secondly, this is not a debate about any one religion. This should be clear to everyone. This is not a debate about making a religion great or a religion inferior. So if someone is watching with this hope or has come here, I want to assure you that you will get a hopeless hand.

In this debate, even with the use of religious symbols, these two people who are looking serious to you, are good people. Yesterday evening they met for tea, they had a lot of laughter and jokes, and there was a picture of them putting on their vests. This is proof that these two people are very much ready to have a peaceful debate

in comparison to the commotion that has been created on the internet. Twitter is limited to Twitter. Elon Musk calls it X these days. And now I am going to start this debate. to International Islamic University, Malaysia. of about their declared atheism and talk about their rationality. Ladies and gentlemen, does God exist?

Everyone is trying to find the answer to this question. Some call it the discovery of Goddamn particle, some call it the discovery of God particle, some call it the discovery of Higgs boson. Some are trying to find the answer to this question that how did it come into mass existence? What happened? the I am the first one to invite Mufti Shamayal Nadvi. Mr. Akshay Kumar. All the praises are for the creator who has created this universe with a purpose.

Respected Mr. Javed Akhtar, Mr. Saurabh Devedi and respected audience, thank you all for being here today. In today's debate, since we are going to talk about the topic of Does God Exist, this is a topic that can have different standards for taking any decision. Therefore, it is important to know which standard is right and which is wrong in today's debate. The first standard, which I think our respected Mr. Javed Akhtar will quickly stick to is science.

Whereas science in reality cannot be a standard to directly prove or deny the existence of God. And what is the reason for that? I am not saying this. These are the people who are experts in science. National Academy of Science 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 evidence and empirical evidence is related to our natural

and physical world. Whereas God is non-physical and supernatural reality. Therefore, you cannot check non-physical reality with the tool which is used to find physical reality. Therefore, in today's debate, to prove or deny the existence of God, scientific evidence to But this standard is also irrelevant today. Why? Because revelation is a source of knowledge, a valid source of knowledge, but according to our Javed Akhtar Sahib, 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 for Javed Akhtar Sahib. to It is like this, that Mr. Javed asks me to show him how to detect plastic using a metal detector. Now, since plastic is not being detected, plastic does not exist. No, you are using the wrong tool. Plastic is not detected using this tool. Therefore, I believe that asking for empirical evidence on the existence of God is a childish demand.

And our respected Javed Akhtar Sahib has now gone far beyond this stage. Now there is only one standard left, and that standard is intellect, logic, reasoning. And this is the standard under which the existence of God will be proved or denied. But since this is a very important and sensitive topic, therefore a logical argument should be such that is definitive, not indefinite. It should be clear like 2 and 2 is 4, which is not possible to be logically rejected. For example, we say that our respected Mr. Sourabh is a human being

and all humans are conscious beings. So what is the result? Our Sourabh is also a conscious being. Is this an indefinite argument or a definite argument? This is a definite argument. It is clear as two and two.

In this, it it cannot be rejected. So if today, our Javed Akhtar Sahab gives any logical evidence, which is not of God, which is definite, then I declare that I will definitely accept that evidence and will consider it. But at the same time, I also declare as a prediction that no one can present such a definite argument. We will give evidence and we will give definitive evidence.

We will give logical evidence. We will give such evidence that the entire atheistic world cannot refute it. Let's go. Now let's think of an example. A scenario, a simple scenario, which is requested by all the audience. We 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 in front of you.

The first question that comes to your mind is, why did this ball come here? How did it come? Why is it pink? Could it have been any other color? Why is it in this shape? Could it have been any other shape?

Naturally, you will come to the conclusion that there is someone who has made this ball with these specific properties and placed it here. Because you know that it is not necessary for this ball to exist. I all If we ask Mr. Javed Akhtar, because his worldview is atheistic, and not only his,

but all the atheists and people who have an atheistic worldview, if you ask them, where did this universe come from? Their answer will be either argument from ignorance or dogmatic. Either they will say, I don't know where this came from, therefore God does not exist. This is an argument from ignorance. Or we can say that this universe has become itself.

This means that the ball should also become itself. But this explanation about the ball will not be accepted that it has become itself. But it will be done with regards to the universe. We can call this dogma in other words. Second thing, our Javed Akhtar will definitely give an example of God of gaps. And he will give an example that in the earlier times, when there was electricity, people would go to one God and when it rained, they would go to another God.

They did not have a proof. This is not our worldview. This is not our worldview. Because by understanding the interpretation of the process of natural phenomena, how is it proved that God does not exist? I will talk about this later on. You will also see, and I expect that our respected Mr. Javed

Akhtar will also give emotional arguments accountable. And if we are accountable, then for accountability, evil is necessary. Without it, we cannot be accountable. And if we are not accountable, then we will ask Javed Akhtar to tell us why is there suffering in this world? If God is not there, then why is there suffering? And what about the passion of those people who have the passion to take revenge after suffering and they just left this world? Will all their pain go in vain? suffering Being contingent means that when you depend on someone on your existence,

then obviously this universe is contingent. And if something is not contingent, then I will request you to show me which thing is not contingent in the universe. We will also observe and see. And when contingent things are present, then according to the terminology of philosophers,

we reach that place and that entity which is called necessary being. of depends on it. Now if you ask who created that person, what is his cause, what is his cause, what is his cause and go on endlessly, we call this as infinite regress of causes which is a logical fallacy. Conceptually infinity is possible. For example, if we count numerically 1,2,3, I am not talking conceptually. Practically, in reality, prove that infinite regress of causes is possible or not. If it is possible, we will accept it. If it is not possible, then only one option is left, which we call necessary being.

Such a necessary being who is independent. Because if it is dependent, then it will not be necessary. Such an independent being who is eternal. If it is not eternal, if it has a beginning, then it is a contingent. to Thank you, Mufti Sahab that my knowledge about science is very

small, so you don't worry about it. But I have some common sense. See, this concept of God is not a new concept. It has been around for centuries. Some religions are 3000 years old, 4000 years old. the world. I have been to many places, I have seen many things, I have seen many things. I have seen many things.

I have seen many things. I have seen many things. I have seen many things. I have seen many things. to So their Jupiter, Ra, Zeus, they had as much knowledge of it as a religious person has knowledge of his God. Before Christianity came, there was a religion in Europe, Germanic religion. It had a God, a wife, two sons and one daughter. to to to Har madhab aap se ek cheez maanta hai. Faith. Yeh faith kya cheez hoti hai? What is the

difference between faith and belief? Yeh koi yeh to bahut hi hamakhana baat hogi, koi aajmi kahe, saab agar khuda hai to mujhe dikhaiye. Yeh to jahila na baat hogi. Maine to North Pole nahi dekha hai. Magar main maanta hoon ki North Pole hai but I believe it is the North Pole. Why do I believe it? Because if this world is round, then it must have a top. There are some people who have been there.

Common sense says it will be like that. There are evidences, witnesses, reasons. So this is not my faith. I have to say. I have to say. I have to say.

I have to say. I was planned to be born. Insaaf ka toh nature se koi vasta hi nahi. Jo aap kehte hain ke ek din insaaf ke dega. Insaaf is a human concept. Nature mein koi insaaf nahi. Agar sheikh hiran ko kha jaata hai, toh usse koi suzaar nahi milti. Agar ek andhi aati hai aur hare bhare pedon ko khad ke thek diti, toh andhu ki jail nahi hoti hai. to is a human concept. to the world. I am not saying that you should not do it. You should do it. You should do it. You should do it.

You should do it. You should do it. You should do it. You should do it. traffic jam. If a lion eats a deer, does it go to jail? Nothing of that sort. It doesn't exist. So, the religions of the world that promise you justice, it is only through this that you know that it is man-made.

This concept is not of any other place. Some people say that nature is God. So, in nature, there is no justice. to The very fact that religions demand faith. It's not like they have justification. It's good that religion is in moderation. There is no reason.

It must have some qualities. See, this is the benefit, that is the benefit. Alcohol is mostly used in medicines. to I have a friend who is a doctor. He is a doctor. He is a doctor. He is a doctor.

He is a doctor. He is a doctor. the world. I have been in the world for a long time. I have been in the world for a long time. I have been in the world for a long time. I have been in the world for a long time. I have been in the world for a long time.

I have been in the world for a long time.

I have been in the world for a long time.

I have been in the world for a long time. to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi the Thank you very much Javed sahib.

Aapki baat ko sunkar bade mehzooz hua hai hum log. Mehzooz, do you understand? We enjoyed. Okay, ab thoda sa logically usko hum log dekhen. Darsal hum log ne kal guzarish ki thi Mufti sahab se bhi, Javed Sahab has given a reference that God is finite. So many religions have gone ahead, some have accepted Jupiter as God, some have accepted

someone else. I say, the one who has accepted the contingent as God, is not God. He is not God. We are trying to prove the necessary being. The necessary cause which is eternal. Which is eternal and eternal.

We are not trying to prove anyone else. Second thing, he said that faith and belief. This is a definition of faith which he has presented for the first time. Or excuse me, he has not presented it for the first time, Richard Dawkins has presented it for the first time. I know where this source is from.

Epistemologically, you cannot differentiate faith from belief, sir. Faith is right or wrong. Belief is right or wrong. The logic that is backed by reason and evidence, that faith will be right. And the faith that you are talking about is illogical and has no evidence, we are on the same page.

We don't believe in that faith. The faith that has no logic or evidence, we don't believe in it. We are believers in that faith that has logic and evidence. So, belief is right and wrong, faith is right or wrong. So, today we are not talking about the difference between faith and belief. Today, whether you accept faith or belief, today we will talk about what is truth. Whether true belief is right

or true faith is right, and what is false faith and false belief, we will talk about that. The second thing they asked is what is stupidity? If faith and religion are not stupidity, then what is it? Because we demand faith, then what is stupidity? I say stupidity is atheism. The reason for this is that you are going on a road and you go to a garden and see it is written there, with flowers, I love Javed Akhtar.

And I really do. I love you sir. So, when you reach there, now tell me, will you say, wow, what a natural selection. Is this a natural selection? No. It is precisely designed. There is a designer behind it.

Therefore, if someone is not accepting such a common sense thing that the universe is working so precisely, we can say that it has become self-sufficient. I think there is nothing more stupid than this. This is irrational. Then our sir said that you focused on the ball and not on the island. I am giving the example of the ball to explain who made the island.

Both ball and island are contingent. Both demand a necessary being. Further, he said that there is no justice in nature. We decide what morality is, what justice is. We decide, like in a driving seat, the traffic, this is not said by any God, this is called false equivalence.

This is a logical fallacy. You have made driving and traffic an example, this is subjective morality. You cannot make subjective morality an example and impose it on objective morality. Justice is objective morality. If you say that there is no justice in nature, then it is natural that there is no justice. So let nature be nature,

why are we striving so much to bring justice in the world? This is illogical, irrational. That is why there are many things that are objectively evil or good, and there are many things that are subjectively. Subjectively, the moral or immoral, we decide that with social consensus or personal preference.

But the objective morality, in which justice is given, which they repeatedly repeated, is it objective or subjective? If you say it is subjective, then my question to you is, if the oppression is justified through social consensus, will you justify it? Second, he said that if you drink two packs of alcohol, it doesn't stay the same, it increases. This is the same with religion.

If you drink two packs, it will increase. This is an example, you can fit it anywhere. When you fit it on atheism, when you drink two packs of alcohol, it will increase and become North Korea. Thank you.

For the first round of rebuttal, I am inviting Mr. Javed. You have seven minutes. Reset it please.

I am happy that Mr. Mufti has accepted that there is no justice in nature. So, anything that a human being has not made, there is no justice in it. Let me tell you one thing, you go to the garden and see the flowers, they are very beautiful, none of them are natural. All these flowers have been made by crossing them. The flowers in the jungle are very ordinary. to This is what a human being is made of. Man has done many things. The rest is that you did not answer me on one thing.

I have a complaint about that. What is faith? And why do you ask for faith from me? You are logical. You have all the rationals. You have all the evidence.

So why do you demand faith? That you surrender and don't ask questions. to The history of mankind is that there are two types of people in the world. One is those who have worshipped their ignorance. The other is those who have fought their ignorance and have come to know what it is. You are saying this, and you are surprised that how did this universe come into being. People were surprised that how does the sun come out of the earth when it is sunset? And you are ready to take a step back and believe in the eternal. You take a step back. You go after the sun and say, don't ask me where this came from.

This power will always be there. So, what is the problem in believing in the universe? Take a step back. Was this always there or not? of to make universal 4-EV lessons and baki sab pata hai. of the electricity, the mic, the air you came in, the car you came in, all of this was made by those people who asked questions. This world in which you are comfortably in today,

it was made by those people who asked questions. And at every stage, these questions were called to religion I The research on the human body is shut down. They don't let us do the republican research. What is the fear? In the past, all these religious people were very angry that this man is trying to make a human being.

What is your problem? Let him make it. What is this fear? of to to you the world. I have a very good friend who is a professor of physics.

He is a professor of physics.

He is a professor of physics. He is a professor of physics.

He is a professor of physics. He is a professor of physics. I have to Thank you. Faith is right and wrong. Today we are not talking about faith. We are talking about truth and does God exist. Does God exist? Is this God or not? What is the truth? You can call it faith or belief. Not my business. The question will be with atheism, not only with religion, but with everyone. And today I will ask a question and I hope you will answer. You have not yet answered any contingency argument. You said, why don't you say eternal about the universe? Because logically it is not possible that the universe is eternal.

The universe is a contingent thing which is bound by time and space. The one which is bound by time and space will be a contingent. The one which is a contingent will have a beginning. The one who has a beginning cannot be eternal. This is a common thing. You said that there is no mention of dinosaurs in any religious book.

It is a pity that I have not found any mention of dinosaurs in any mathematics book. the He has come to teach morality, to teach about God, to teach the reality of non-physical reality. Religion stops science. It doesn't. If it does, it does it wrong. Religion stops scientism, in which our Javed is a different person. Science and scientism are different. Scientism is that you understand that science and scientific methodology is the only source of knowledge to acquire. This is Scientism. We reject it.

We progress science. You can read our entire history and you will understand. Anyway, this is a different topic. After that he said a word, Vatican gave a fatwa. Vatican has nothing to do with fatwa. Both are contradictory words. After that he said that we don't know. If you don't know, then clearly say that you don't know. What is the harm in that?

That is what I am saying. You say that you don't know, but why are you claiming that God does not exist? You say that you don't know. It is possible, it is not possible. 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 too. Like it is upon us. And why is it, I will tell you.

Why is it, I will tell you. Philosophically, the claim is not just that a person claims positively and claims negatively, then the burden of proof is not just a positive claim. And if a person claims negatively, then it is not a burden of proof. For example, I claim that there is no one in that room. I have claimed a knowledge. There is no one in that room.

I have claimed a knowledge. Either I say I don't know, it can be true or not. 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 both a button of proof. We also have a button of proof. I have given a contingency argument. Break it and show.

The last thing. He said that what was God doing 150 years ago or millions of years ago before creating the world? Oh Lord! Anyway, I'll answer. You are our respected personality. If you weren't here, I wouldn't have entertained you like this. Time, is it 100 years ago or 100 years later?

Before, after, now. These are the words that are related to time. Time has only started after the beginning of the universe. So what was God doing before that? The question is illogical. This is a fallacy. to Second thing, the argument of contingency which I have presented to you, you have repeatedly proved and said that God of gaps, earlier we didn't know that science has done it. I will explain with the example of simples.

The gaps which you are talking about, the thing through which science will prove those gaps, that will be contingency. Now whether it is force, matter or energy. is is God. Second thing, you have, what was I saying? Where will you stop? God is where you will stop. So, we have discussed about time, God of Gap, sorry, yeah. You can take an example of this. There is a car, one gentleman saw that the wheels of the car are in the right place,

the steering is in the right place, and the seats are well designed, the car is working so precisely, so definitely someone has created it. is So, we proved it. But, is it possible that the creation of a car and its creator becomes impossible? Is it possible that its question ends? No. You filled the gaps with contingent things and broadened our observation. Now, we came to know how complex the system of this car is. Earlier we used to think less, now the complexity is more clear. Now we understand that our certainty has increased.

That someone has made this car, this is the case of the universe. Science will always fill the things of the physical world. And will do it with physical things only. Because empirical evidence is related to the physical world. You can never prove metaphysical reality through science. You have to use the wrong tool.

It is the same thing that you start using metal detectors to detect plastic, which is obviously not right. Thank you.

Yes.

This is the second round of the argument.

Yes. It is 7 2 of the argument.

First of all, I would like to say that you said that when there was no universe, there was no time, there was nothing. How was there nothing? There was God. There was an existence of God. So when there was God, there was time. It is not that there was nothing. There was God. Okay, what else did you say? Please prove it.

You have logic and I have logic. to the The second point is that whenever you say that there are gaps, whenever these gaps challenge a religion, whenever such a thing happens, there is a commotion. When they challenge a faith, all these signs have been tried to stop by religion at different times. to to the You sell a small medicine on the street and you use it in the same way. No one benefits from using it.

All the countries and all the goods that are in bad condition, they do all the wrong things in the name of God. They do wrong and right things. What do I have to do with it? It is only by using it. Even after that if you have a little bit of decency left, then what is the big deal.

I am feeling very good that both the scholars believe in time. And they have been arguing for a long time. And sometimes, they finish their speeches before the time and sit on their chairs. This is the round 2 of this argument. Now,

it is the round 2 of rebuttal

and after that, cross-examination will take place. No, your argument is over, sir. In our school syllabus, we teach the story of Panch Parmeshwar written by Premchand ji.

You don't worry, I won't let you miss any round. Rebuttal round to Mufti Shamayal Nadwee sahab.

Actually, the real problem is that Javed sahab's concept of God is not clear. He said that before the universe, there was God, then also there will be time. Time is a part of the universe. We believe that God is necessary being, it is necessary to be timeless because he is the creator of time. When he created time, how will he be in time? When he created time, how will he be in time? When he created space, how will he be in space?

If he is bound to time and space from the beginning, then what did he create? Therefore, this question is wrong that if there was a God, there would be time. Not at all. We are not bound to time.

We are related to the physical world. That is metaphysical reality. The second example he gave was that a tea bag is floating in the air. And I don't know, maybe he referred to Bertrand Russell. Anyway, this is the problem. The problem is that we are not able to differentiate between things. The example you gave is imagination.

And what I am proving is logical necessity. If you have come to to imagine, do anything. There will be a pink elephant in Jupiter, there will be a unicorn. What difference does it make to the universe? You cannot prove the logical necessity with that. I am talking about the prime cause,

the necessary being without which the existence of this universe is not possible. Second thing, religion is challenged by science etc. This is not possible. Secondly, science challenges religion etc. This is not our topic. If I talk about this, then my time will be wasted. Because we are not discussing religion. Science, religion and especially me and our world view

at least does not follow science. It is based on scientism. I have already explained this. Secondly, they said take a world map of two different places. I did this homework and I took a map of the Middle East and Europe. This is the religious area and this is the liberal and atheist area.

I found out that the most rape cases are there. I found out this according to the UN report. I am not bringing this from my home. That the working women in European countries, 81% of them are women, are working in sexual harassment. This is not happening in the Middle East.

They are religious people, that is why it is not happening in Middle East. They are religious people. That's why it is not happening. Second thing, you said that it is very difficult for a religious person to be good. It is very difficult. So, it means that apart from God, you have a standard of good and bad. I would like to talk about this in the conversational style discussion and segment. Thank you very much.

This is the second round of rebuttal. You have five minutes. After this we will start cross-examination. If you want, you can answer the questions asked in rebuttal. Questioner 2 to I am not talking about myself. Then what are we talking about? In which language did we have a conversation? And to say that time did not exist before, then why do we say that it will always be and will always be? Time is always there. So how do you say that it is always there and will always be?

Does the word always mean time? If there is no time, then how is it always? It has always been and will always be. of to Deep theory has emerged a deep theory. I give my Gully man Jolly man Nashu Hoti Bacha Nila Hota Gareeb kabacha is a Kupas. Yeah, I'm a little tired. It's a two-man thing. How many you come to the book?

I don't know. But they do the life. We interfere. Karta or you think around? I got a walk. I be here for discussion's sake, then when I see the world, I don't have any

respect for him. What are you doing?

You are all-powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent.

You must have lived in Gada, right?

You are everywhere.

You were seeing how the child's body was flying.

You were seeing.

And you want me to worship you? You are not my child. You are not my child. the world. And I am not saying that you should not be in the world. You should be in your own world. You were seeing how the child was being tortured. You were seeing.

And you want me to worship you?

You are that.

Our Prime Minister is better than him.

He thinks of himself. Strange.

Whom are you talking about?

Even if he is.

This world is filled with injustice, bhari hui.

Aur aap yeh mat kahiye jaate ho dekh rahe hain. Aur wo batayega ek din. Agar wo dekh rahe hain aur interfere nahi karta toh aap dua kyu maante? to to Deviyon Sajjano, is bahas ke do round aur do rebuttal poori ho chuke hain. Ab sabse zaruri aur sabse mushkil round shuru ho raha hai cross examination ka.

Ab in vidwano ki sajjanta ki ek parak bhi hogi aur vakt humne 16 minute ka tekiya hain. We have decided the time to be 16 minutes. Would you like to ask the first question?

Yes, of course.

You can speak first.

You can take the mic in your hand.

Please move this.

This is from below.

Now, you have to move this.

Can you move this?

Yes, I will speak.

Can we move this dice?

Quickly.

Move the dice back a little. the Q. I have to avoid that today. Yes, Mr. Mukti, the first question is yours. You have 16 minutes. We both have questions.

Yes. Thank you very much. What you just said was very important. I would like to discuss it further. But since this is a segment, cross-examination, so the first question

I have for you is that, the contingency argument that I was telling you for so long, I was telling you with my intellect, you tell me, do you consider infinite regress of causes possible or do you consider the existence of necessary being right? Because there can be only two options. You tell me. to Infinite is a constant. So, being contingent means that it is dependent on someone in its existence. Whatever is dependent cannot be independent. So, there must be some cause for it.

So, what do you think is this infinite regress? That is, cause per cause, cause per cause, cause per cause, and sometimes it goes on endlessly. Because if this happens, then we do not come into existence. Logically, this is a co-incidental thing.

Co-incidental, agreed upon. sense to to is to the world. I have seen it from a distance, it is 2 billion light years away. I have nothing to do with it. 2 billion years, meaning if I walk at 80,000 miles per second, then I will reach there in 20 billion years. What was the need for this? This world, this universe was created for the humans, for the creatures.

So all this...

Sir, I didn't understand this term.

There was nothing special to understand in this. This ultimate, it is said that this whole universe, this world was created for the humans. All this is for the humans. Isn't it right?

But it doesn't mean that if you don't know the reason behind something, then there is no reason. This is called a problem with perspective.

No, I don't know. But it is not my responsibility. He was absolutely right. Bertrand Russell, you have misled him. You are making a claim,

why should I say that it is wrong? You prove it. I have no responsibility. I have not said it. You prove it that it is right.

You are not answering the argument of contingency. Would you like to ask a question to Mufti Sahab? Because this is the time of cross-examination.

Like you were saying earlier about faith. I would like to ask that whatever revelations God has made, not for one religion, but for many religions, will So, what is this story? Now, you see, sometimes I feel that the football final, there are lakhs of people, then they cover the TV, crores of people, if there was a booming voice of God, I am God, then all people would have listened to it now and would have listened to it on TV, the story would have ended. the the the world. I am not saying that you should not be a Muslim. I am saying that you should not be a Muslim. I am not saying that you should not be a Muslim. I am saying that you should not be a Muslim. I am not saying that you should not be a Muslim.

I am saying that you should not be a Muslim. I am not saying that you should not be a Muslim. I am not saying that you should not be a Muslim. I am not saying that you should not be a Muslim. Now I will answer. Ok. That's why I came to you.

First of all you talked about revelation and scriptures. I can talk about it but I won't today because we don't have much time. We will discuss it some other time. I am ready to talk about it.

This is the second round of discussion.

Does God exist?

Since we are talking about God's existence today, I will entertain your questions related to that and I will also ask. You said that you did not prove it, whereas the argument of contingency is the fundamental argument. You tell me the meaning of contingency. What do you mean by that? that every existence which is bound to anything, every existence or anything which is bound to anything in its existence, and is bound to it, it needs it, it depends on it,

then obviously it has a cause. This is a matter of intellect. You are talking about reasoning, I am doing the same. The second thing, you said that so many billion light years are far away, what is my connection with that?

Then I think you should not say this, I think therefore I am an atheist. You should think. You should not think by being in a limited area, but think by going out. You asked the third question, you problem of evil and you are repeating the same word again and again that God is omnipotent, God is all powerful. This is what we have to understand, what is the concept of God? The problem of evil is based on two assumptions.

If you understand these two assumptions, then this problem will not remain a problem. You will understand that this argument collapses. Point number one, that is your first false assumption that God is merciful, omnipotent and is doing injustice in the world. But you should understand that according to our world view, God is not only omnipotent and merciful.

He is also all wise and all knowing. He has wisdom and wisdom behind everything. It is not necessary that you or I understand that wisdom and wisdom. If you are deciding according to what you are understanding, then it is an argument from a limited perspective. And we accept this principle in our world, in our daily life. When we go to a doctor and if he has given us a medicine, we don't say that until

you have the knowledge and wisdom, why did you give this medicine, we will not accept it. We don't say that. We accept its authority. Why? Because we know that it is knowledgeable and it has wisdom. It has more knowledge and wisdom than us.

Tell us, sir.

No, no, doctor, by God's grace, doctor is educated.

One. So I will listen to him. to to You haven't heard me completely. I said your entire argument is based on two false assumptions. I have told you 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. If there is no evil in this world, how will you define good? If there is no injustice, how will you understand justice? If there is no oppression, how will you understand justice? If there is no darkness, how will you understand light?

Wow!

Very good!

Now listen to something else.

I really liked this, Ishaan. That until there is no rape, how will you respect women?

You didn't hear my answer.

Until the children are not killed, how will you respect the innocence of children?

You didn't hear my answer.

Wow! Till the time you don't kill children, you respect the innocence of children. You didn't give the complete answer.

What a great thing you have said.

You didn't give the complete answer. You listen to me. I have told you one thing. Second thing, we have come to this world for a test. We are being tested. And every human being is tested in different ways. And if evil is present in this world,

then that evil is the means to develop human noble qualities and to progress in different fields. If there is no evil in this world, then what is the meaning of the test? If I give my student MCQs and write the right answer in them and say that your test is over, it is meaningless. If we have come to this world for the test, then obviously, both good and evil are present.

So, if both good and evil are present, then is this evil also made by God? Yes, it is made by God. Okay, that's good. Yes, absolutely. God has made it. So, the majority of the world is evil. So yeh khuda actually evil ke side pe lag raha mujhe. Dikhe ke majority mein toh wo hai. Kya baat ka bhai? Koi bhi jo munsif hoga,

chahe aapka apna ghar ho, jiske aap sabse badde hain, chahe aapki organization ho jo You will keep evil there to prove that the rest of the people are decent? Listen to me.

What is this? The argument is wrong.

If… Until there is no evil, the decent man will not look decent. If the examiner is giving the wrong option, then the examiner is not evil. The one who is selecting the wrong option will fail. The creator has created evil, but he is not evil. Okay.

Listen to me.

Let me complete, sir.

Let me complete, sir. The creator has created evil. For the test, that is not evil. Evil will be that which will take over. The one who creates the knife is not wrong. The one who misuses the knife is wrong.

How do you misuse rape?

Rape is the result of human's free will.

How can one misuse rape?

Now listen to me. Yes, I am telling you. The evil that exists in this world, there are many ways to do it. One way is human's own 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 for that only hell has been created. This is a big problem of free will. When you do a bad thing or a bad thing, it is said that this is free will. 7 billion free wills are moving on this planet. 7 billion free wills. If a man kills me with his free will, I will die by God's will or by his free will?

My death is in God's hands or in the hands of the free will? God has made a system of free will and someone is using that system wrongly to kill you.

He is using it wrongly to kill me. Who is responsible for my death? That human being is responsible. You are contradicting yourself. Is it not wrong? Did he create the system of free will? Did he create the system of death and life? You are contradicting yourself. You just said that a man killed you with free will. He was given free will but he misused it. 7 billion free wills are moving on this planet. And you want me to only think about God.

Do I have to look after these 7 billion free wills or not? They are destroying and destroying is increasing.

Absolutely. So, if you tell, if God is not there, for example, then how will you decide evil? How can you define evil objectively without God? Tell us, Jalal sahib, how to define evil?

See, there are two types of animals in the world. to define. a unit, in that you have to make rules for interacting.

So people will decide?

People will decide.

If people decide that it is right to rape someone, will you justify it? Your foundation is that people will decide.

No, no, no.

There are such groups in the world that consider rape to be permissible in certain situations. I will not go into detail, you know it. of I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say,

I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, the At that time, how many people on the planet believed in Jesus? The majority of the planet, not the majority of the society, but the majority of of cross-questioning ends here.

It is very good that it has been fragmented in this way so that the mercury that is going up does not go down.

I will answer this.

Yes.

The majority of the planet is dependent on the powers of some other religions. Why don't you say that?

No, you are talking about the majority.

Okay, this is a close question.

You are saying that evil and good will be decided by majority. Whatever the majority does, it will be right. Let's follow the format as you have decided. I trusted the good people and then decided moderation. You have 5 minutes for closing argument.

After that we will take the answer from the audience after Javed for closing argument. After that we will try to answer the audience after Mr. Javed's closing argument. Your time starts now.

Thank you very much. Our topic is Does God Exist? I had prepared so much academically for this. I had thought that I will give many arguments. But due to time constraints and Mr. Javed was going from here to there, so I had to entertain him a little.

I could give only one argument on Does God Exist. There are many arguments and definitive arguments. And he did not entertain my argument in any one round and did not refute. Not even in one round. Not even in one round. And neither...

Sir, your closing argument has come.

No, tell me. Argument of contingency, sir. I have told you many times, what is the meaning of contingency? How can I explain to you? How easily can I explain? I don't understand. You can say contingency in Urdu.

You complete your point in the last 4 minutes. Second thing, just a minute please ma'am. Can I talk? Second thing is that you have not answered this. minute please ma'am can I talk? we condemn them. And what is their relation with God? If someone is doing wrong, someone has killed someone, someone has raped someone, he should be punished. And you don't have any rational, strong foundation of morality. You said that majority will decide the society,

that will be right. I said, will you say Hitler right? No, no, no, the majority of the planet will decide. So the majority of the planet believes in the existence of God. You are saying that this is religious. So, you don't have any strong foundation of objective morality. If there is any foundation of objective morality, then it is only God, God, God.

Thank you.

Yes, this was the closing argument of Mufti Shamayal Ladvi.

Now, we have...

Yes, I... Can I give a compliment? Yes. of to the power So, when you say that the universe, whose contingency is this, I am using the word, so how can this be possible? And you immediately surrender that obviously the creator of this was ten thousand times more complicated than this. You have no objection to that.

He is timeless, he came much later than the first star. You are ready to accept all this, which you have no proof of You have no reason What is your history in religion? The belief of the gods This has been proven wrong constantly

Meaning you say that in the era of Aristotle, everyone was ignorant They also believed in God so much Which is no longer This will not remain either You write I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have to say, I have always created chaos in the world.

merciful, we believe that Allah has a lot of power, then why are those children dying? The second thing is that if you talk about contingency, why are the entire Muslim countries not able to save the children of Gaza? Because if they want to, because Allah the Almighty rules over them, rules over everyone,

then why can't they save them?

Thank you.

Thank you very much. It was very good that you mentioned this. I will try to explain it better.

Look, as far as you said that the children of Gaza are being killed, It's good that you mentioned this. I will try to explain it better.

You said that the children of Gaza are being killed. There are two worldviews. One is atheistic and the other is theistic. The children are dying in both worldviews. But our worldview says that they are being recompensed. They are saying that their death is going to be in vain. There is no recompense for it because they have no concept of the hereafter,

of Allah or of God. You asked this question that why God is merciful and does not stop. I told you that this is a misconception among people that they consider God to be merciful and omnipotent.

God does not have only these two attributes. God has many attributes. Among them is Al-Hakeem. Among them is, sorry, the If a doctor is injecting a small child, he is hurting him. From his limited perspective, this is wrong. And the doctor is bad. But when you see the broader picture,

you and I have only one pixel. We can see that there is murder in Gaza. But how much recompense they are going to get for this, the whole picture is with God. He is not taking a test. God is not blowing it up. Israel is blowing it up. So, condemn him.

Let's take the next question.

Professor Purushottam Agrawal.

Mufti sahib, I have a request to you. At least, I have a religious and philosophical... Please, take a little mic closer. I am doing it. Ma'am, please. There is a religious and philosophical tradition which considers the universe as the ultimate. Sarvam khalo idam brahman. This is Chhandogya Upanishad. And it completely rules out the existence or necessity of a creator.

The creation itself is the creator. So, one minute please. The second question that you are asking repeatedly that God is also a wise, He knows everything. So, if in wisdom, to tolerate all the sins and atrocities of the world is included, then it means that if I oppose Him with free will,

then there is contradiction between God's wisdom and my free will. Because when I am opposing whatever is happening in Gaza, then I am opposing God's will and God's wisdom. So, in God's wisdom... One minute, Swarabh, please. One sentence. God's wisdom is that whatever is happening in Gaza, it is happening. I am opposing it. So, I am going against God's wisdom. One question. Second is that…

No, no, you have already asked two questions.

Sir, sir, sir.

You can ask more questions but give me two answers. First you said… Listen, listen to me.

Sir, sir, sir.

According to the Bible, everything is going right. No, no, it is not going right. I am tell you what is happening. Let me complete. One second, one second. See, it is like this.

It was decided after a lot of discussion and discussion that some rules should be made so that a time bound conversation can take place. And brother, you are doing a very important work but you are coming in the frame of the camera and making a mess of that work. Ok, Guru. Now I have to vent out my anger somewhere.

Sorry. You have asked two questions. First you said that we have this concept that universe is a necessary being. Creation itself is the creator. How irrational is this? That I will exist later but I am already existing. That means they are existing and not existing at the same time. This is not stopping it, is this a contradiction? Tell me, if a child is writing wrong answers in an exam, listen, the examiner can stop it if he wants, why is he not stopping it?

Is this a contradiction or not? not God must represent my position, your position. I, as a result of my free will, as a result of my human wisdom, oppose the atrocities that are happening in Gaza. Should we oppose it? According to you, I am opposing God's wisdom? Not at all.

The society is being destroyed by God.

Not at all. Not at all. His murder in Gaza is the result of the misuse of human beings, the result of the misuse of free will. God does not give orders, he stops it. This is the problem. You told that injections are painful for the child. Sir, if you give such a rhetoric statement, then there will be no problem. This is a rhetoric statement. This is not a logical argument.

I am sorry. The last 30 minutes are going to be very difficult. Mufti sahab is sitting in the front, give him the mic. Tarun, you have the mic, you know the frame of the camera.

First of all, congratulations to both of you.

Sir, please tell your name. You live in Chicago, America, that's all I remember.

I told you. My name is Yasir Nadeem Al-Wajidi. Javed sir, I have a question for you regarding Infinite Regress. There is a hypothetical scenario. If you are a poet because your teacher was a poet and he was a poet because his teacher was a poet and in the same way, if we keep walking backwards and don't stop anywhere, then you can never be a poet. But you are a poet. Your poetry exists, it means that you have stopped somewhere.

So my question is, do you consider the infinite regress of causes as a logical fallacy or not?

Yes or no?

I don't consider them as a logical fallacy.

But my problem is that when I don't believe it, I will continue with this logic. the the First of all, I am ashamed of those children who were killed in Gaza.

Because they were killed while we were alive. But I am more ashamed of the fact that I thought that Mufti Sahib was justifying it. Not at all. You are saying a very wrong thing.

I thought I was wrong. I thought I was wrong. I thought I was wrong. I felt that Mufti Sahab is justifying it. Not at all. You are saying a very wrong thing. I felt that I could be wrong. I am asking a question. I disagree with Javed Bhai. Wait a minute. Wait. Let me finish my point first.

If the audience will decide, then the moderator me finish my point first. If the audience decides, then the moderator has no say. I want to tell you all that this debate is between two people. On one side is Mufti Sahab and on the other is Javed Sahab. For the last one and a half hours, they have been arguing their arguments. You can be a coincidence or a compatible with them nor can you be compatible with them. My teachers have taught me that in every situation, there should be a possibility of disagreement.

I respect you very much, Mr. Gauhar, for the wonderful books you have written, Scientific Temperament, but I request all of you, that if you comment on what these people have said, then there will be no time restriction. You can ask questions, whatever comes in the question, it will come.

I disagree with Mr. Javed, that's why I am asking questions to him.

Your question is to Mr. Javed Akhtar.

And my question is that Mr. Javed has used logic many times, that there is logic in science and there is no logic and religion doesn't. I think religion has logic too. But the basis of that logic is that you stop, which Javed has mentioned many times. That is, you stop at the concept of God. And asking questions in this is forbidden to ask questions in this. The question is, does Mr. Javed agree that the logic of science is different and the logic of religion is different?

Please tell us sir.

Look, there are three things. There is science, logic, and faith. the I can't go on this. The meaning of belief is that you accept this and don't question. Not this. You do all the scientific talks and go to one place, stop at the presence of God and surrender. I am not ready to surrender. That's all.

Yes.

Sir is sitting in front, give him the mic.

Brother, you wanted to ask, right?

Yes. No, no. Thank you.

Your name?

Asim Iftikhar

Yes, ask

Sir, I have a question for you.

Keep the mic closer In your closing statement you said that the future of religion is not going to last long but I can see that the Oxford University the University of London in 2011, which was conducted by 50 academicians. In that they say that the faith in God is inbuilt in human nature. We call it as it is included in the nature. And they say that if someone thinks that he will destroy religion,

then this is his misunderstanding.

So what do you say about this study? to I have not heard the data of the past. So today they have this opinion and it will be there. There are many opinions in the world. But I think that with time, humans are becoming more reasonable and logical than before. Today you see, in Western Europe, what is the percentage of non-believers?

Very high.

There the churches are empty. to the Please don't do this sir. Everybody has a right sir. But we can only take selected questions. Sir, these are young people. Are you young or not? He is saying that he is young too. You should let him claim his youthfulness.

Mufti sir, you are young. Yes, ask.

Sir, my question is this. Ask him also. My question is that, theists who believe in God have their social get togethers. 5th is coming today, Christmas, Holi, Diwali, Eid. What are the atheists offering? I want to come to their shop, but I am not able to get attracted.

What are the social get togethers you have?

The biggest Holi is celebrated in our home. That is our social heritage. It's not like we will throw the baby along with the water. This is a good thing. Keep it. It's useless. Throw it away.

Yes.

My question is for Mr. Nadvi. 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 given free will on earth. So why are you wasting your time talking about God? We should talk about how to improve society. God tells us how to improve society. I will answer you now. You said that God is not an object. God is not an object. God is not an object. God is not an object. God is not an object. God is not an object. God is not an object.

God is not an object. God is not an object. complex being is, which is a simple being. Yes, you can know all his wisdoms and everything about him, but this is not possible. Because he is all wise, 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 far from this world that he has given free will on earth, we are all humans, we have free will. And what is happening

in society, we will decide what is happening in society. We will not decide. We will not decide. God is beyond time and space. But he is taking our test and God has told us what you have to do and what you don't have to do.

So, of course, we will listen to God.

There is a spectator behind you. The lady standing there. Give the mic to her. Yes, you. Yes, yes, definitely. I am trying to go to all the sides.

Yes, give the mic to her.

Hello, sir.

I am not omnipresent. I am time-bound. And I will try my best.

Yes.

Tell me your name.

My name is Ursula. I am a student of Delhi University and I am from the Student Federation of India. My question is to Mufti ji. We can sit in this hall and talk about the morality of rape philosophically. But the reality is that in the life of Roopmalla, women go through rape.

And we cannot see it only on numbers. Because how many women are there in these countries, where you are saying that the cases are less, who have access to file a case? How many women have the freedom to work in those countries? This freedom came to Europe, these rules came to Europe, so we are able to work in those countries. Freedom has come to Europe, these rules have come to Europe, so we are able to talk about it today.

Yes, go ahead.

You said that we can talk about it philosophically by being locked in a room, but what is really happening, what is happening on the ground level, which is very wrong and they are suffering. I agree, it is very wrong and we have to stop what is wrong. And why suffering. I agree, what is wrong we have to stop it. Why we have to stop it? Why they are wrong? We have the objective foundation for it. They don't have the objective foundation for it. I want to say that wherever there

is oppression, wherever there is oppression on women or their respect is being stolen or they are being hurt and not only women woman, even a person is being oppressed, so standing against her, this morality has come to us from God. Otherwise Mr. Javed is saying that majority will decide, so majority can change anytime.

You are mistaken, if this message came out of my sentence or I said, then I will give this sentence back, of is that we all know in our hearts what is good and what is bad. We know it very well. Those who do bad things, they also know what is good.

This was the question, sir. Then where did morality come from?

This is a cross examination. Morality came from the desire to stay together.

That is, by staying together, whatever you say, whatever you do, it will happen? No, no.

So?

You can only stay together as long as long as people have morality. Otherwise you will be chaos.

How do you know this?

We have seen where morality is right, there is chaos. We see.

Where do you see?

In the world.

Why are you saying this? If you are wrong somewhere, then you are wrong. You are talking about epistemology, I am talking about ontology.

What is the foundation?

After this debate, I will host you both on tea after this. You can cross examine there.

You are hitting the audience. You are just people. Sir, this one.

Sir, my name is Laikur Rahman. I am a student of Aligarh Muslim University. As far as I know, you are also a product of Aligarh Muslim University. I am also a product of the same garden. I am very happy to meet you.

My question is that, Sir, Syed Ali Rahma's view was that one should search for the existence of God in the realm of intellect and not completely deny it. Sir, how will you define it?

No, no, you tell him. He is proving the existence of God by being in the realm of intellect. or He said that he can do it and he has done it today. Yes, yes, yes. Finding or proving is not possible with intelligence. Sir, sir, listen to the question. It cannot be done with intelligence. You said this, right?

It can be done with intelligence. He is saying the same thing.

You are saying it can be done. That is something else.

My question is that I am not a Sarsayeda.

If you, sir, look young man, this is such a wonderful university Give him the mic Listen to me, speak on the mic so that the millions of people watching Give him the mic

He will give you the mic, just wait

Sir, my question was that, Sir Syedi Rahma had a view that the existence of God should be searched in the realm of intellect and not completely denied. This was his concept. But my question is how do you define this? How will you explain this? I want to know.

Because you are the product of intellect, but I didn't find it.

Yes, give him the glasses. Yes, quickly ask him. We have 5 minutes. Assalamualaikum Mufti sahib. My question is to Mr. Javed Akhtar.

What is your name? Hello brother, everyone is asking me.

Faiz. Faiz.

My question is that atheists are using the problem of evil argument against Muslims. That there is so much evil in this world. Against Muslims?

Against theists. Correct me a little.

They worked so hard to stop this religion.

So, basically this argument is that there is so much evil in this world and if there is an all good God, why doesn't he stop it? But the hidden assumption in this question is that evil exists in this world. Now how can atheists prove ontologically that evil exists in this world?

I will tell you. Please explain a little.

No, no, no sir. We came to listen to him.

I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. I want to explain ontologically. So, look, according to atheism, everything is made randomly. Everything is atoms and molecules. There is only a difference between a stone and me,

that we are a different rearrangement of atoms and molecules. Now, does a person cut a stone into two pieces with a sword or me? According to atheism, it is the same. There is no evil and good according to atheism.

Yes.

Yes, okay.

Mr. Faiz's question is that... Questioner 2 to 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 also are 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? of the world. I have been to many places, but I have never seen a place like this. I have been to many places, but I have never seen a place like this. I have been to many places, but I have never seen a place like this. I have been to many places, but I have never seen a place like this.

I have been to many places, but I have never seen a place like this.

I have been to many places, but I have never seen a place like this. to But in the countries like Latin America and the Gulf, you may not have to rape. What is the need to rape? You can buy it and keep it at home. Why do you have to rape on the streets? But, listen, listen, listen, the reality is that there is no freedom of opinion.

Yes, this is the last question from Mufti. Yes, ma'am, give him the mic. to give advice, not to speak. You are talking on the basis of assumptions. What proof have you presented of God's existence? Now let this question be separate, who is atheist and who is not. And the second thing, you said a small thing that a person uses his free will.

But in using this free will, God has given permission to use it in the most disgusting and disgusting

way.

Do you believe in free will? Or you say that there is no free will? There is.

There is, right?

So, you have no explanation for this. If a person is using that free will and doing wrong things and is surviving and living a good life, there is no recompense for that. In our world view, the person who is not using the free will, who is not using the free will to is I have a question.

If what is happening is happening by free will and one day justice will be served in Mehershar, then why do people pray? By praying, he means that he has still kept this department that I can live a normal life. He can. He can. He can. He can. He can. He can. He can.

He can. He can. the I am saying this so that you have a little strength in your conscience that you have to keep the order safe. The time was fixed, this time is over. You listened patiently. I am very thankful to all of you.

If both these scholars wish, then we can have a round 2 or round 3 of this discussion. If both these scholars wish, then we can have a round 2 or round 3 of this discussion.

This is the beauty of human beings that he is always in the middle of a debate.