Source- This Blog is Written by Pardeep Kumar, Author of Book “Mufti Shamail Vs Javed Akhtar’s Debate, Who One , Who Lost ? An Academic reading of Debate” Present blog is small part of entire book.
Note- We have not user Name of any Religion, Prophet or other religious personality. Its is purely academic work . Argument and counter argument are common to all humans beings.
First Argument: Contingent Argument :Mufti opens the argument by declaring that he is going to present such an argument that the entire atheistic world will not be able to refute.
He explained , “ Now consider a simple example. Imagine we reach an untouched island and find a pink ball lying there. Naturally, questions arise: Why this color? Why this shape? Why here?It could have been some other color. Why is it this shape? It could have been another shape.
Naturally, you will arrive at the conclusion that someone must exist who made this ball with these specific properties and placed it here. Because you know that this ball did not have to exist. It could have existed or not existed. And even if it had to exist, it could have existed in some other form or color.
Now keep expanding this ball, expand it further and further until it becomes the size of the universe. Tell me, does the question change simply because the size has increased? Absolutely not. The question still remains: Where did this universe come from? Why did it come with these specific properties? Who created it? This question remains valid even then.”
Mufit also explained –
“If we ask this question to Mr. Javed Akhtar or to anyone holding an atheistic worldview the answer will either be an argument from ignorance or a dogmatic claim. 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, “The universe came into existence by itself.” But then, the same explanation should be accepted for the ball that it made itself. Yet this explanation is not accepted for the ball, but it is accepted for the universe. This can also be called dogma.
Refutation of Contingent Argument
Now we will analyze Mufti’s logic. When Mufti points to a “pink ball” amidst the sand and palm trees, he relies on contrast. You need to understand here that you recognise the ball as “created” only because you have the concept of “not created” things in your mind.
Humans have had the concept of creation in mind since childhood, naturally we live in Human society, we have an idea which objects are created and which are not.
If you walk into a forest and find a watch, you know it is a watch because it is not a tree. But the Mufti’s logic is a self contradictory one, he eventually claims the tree, the sand, and the atoms are also “watches.” By turning the entire island into a pink ball, he destroys his own compass contrast. If everything is artificial, “artificiality” loses its meaning. It is just the default state of existence. Readers are requested to keep in mind this “ Default State of Existence”
If Mufti says this universe appears to be Design , then he must provide an un-design universe to compare with. In the last 10000 years, humans have become more and more creative. We have designed things which are different from natural ones, this starts giving a sense of creator, our brains have become Design-Detecting Machines. We have become so addicted to “intent” that when we look at the stars, we project our own industrial habits onto the void.This shows human logic is not free from biases.
The claim that the universe is a creation is not a scientific fact; it is an assertion. The default position in science is simply “what exists, exists as it is.” We identify created objects only through contrast.
The Mufti can distinguish a pink ball from nature because he already has a concept of separation between artificial and natural objects. But to claim that existence itself is a creation, he must also show what non-creation looks like,definitely he can not show? Without that contrast, the word “creation” loses its meaning and becomes the default state of reality rather than an explanation
Let us deep dive into the problem of creation and existence. A few centuries ago, we had no knowledge of gravity. Our day-to-day experience told us that anything with weight must be supported. We could not imagine something with mass freely floating in space. As a result, we assumed that objects in the sky must be held up by something.
The Earth was imagined to rest on a turtle; God was imagined to sit on a throne or on water. Such ideas, in the absence of knowledge about gravity, were completely reasonable for the human mind of that time. In this way, gravity along with space and time became a fundamental element shaping human thought, even before it was scientifically understood. Today, with a scientific understanding of gravity, many of these mysteries no longer require such explanations.
In the same way, asking whether everything must have a creator is not a scientifically grounded question. Our thinking is constrained by everyday experience, which is shaped by space and time. Creation and destruction give us a sense of past and present, and from this experience arise the concepts of creation and creator. Science, however, does not operate within these intuitive categories. It seeks laws, not agents.
Javed Akhatar also gave a brilliant refutation: “And all this that you call ‘impossible’ or ‘how did it happen?’—I remember a story. When I was in the sixth grade, I was very weak in mathematics. A teacher was hired. He taught me 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I can never forget the day, Mufti Sahab, when he explained what 1/2 and 3/4 are. I felt like my head would split in two. I thought, ‘This man is telling me to walk through a wall!’ Today, I laugh at that. So, the things that are beyond your mind today, and you are amazed by them—a time will come when they will seem ordinary. This has happened throughout human history. Don’t make all your decisions so quickly. Have some humility to say, ‘We don’t know.’” Javed Akhtar highlights the limitation of Logical Premises. Logical premises can be changed or updated with change of time, we will discuss it in the next section.
Next Mufti asked “Why pink? Why here?” as if every property of the universe were a thing chosen from a catalog. He mistakes Physical Necessity for Divine Choice. Actually this argument is an extension of the Intelligent Design argument itself.
Consider the snowflake: an intricate, hexagonal masterpiece of geometry. The snowflake is not hexagonal because it “chose” to be; it is hexagonal because, under those conditions, it could not be anything else. Similarly water drops take a round shape because it is the perfect shape under Physical Forces water can take.
Similarly to say, “Every creation has a creator.” This is not a logical discovery, it is just a circular definition. The word “Creation” already implies a “Creator.” By calling the universe a “creation,” the Mufti has already added God into the premise before the argument even begins. Thus Mufti himself produces the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, which he actually wants to reject.
Does every existence have a cause?” The answer is no. Many quantum phenomena do not have a deterministic cause. Our day-to-day objects are subject to causality; however, if we try to build universal premises based on localized experience, problems arise.
Let us further proceed with the argument if we use verbs like “happen,” “begin,” and “exist,” which all imply a timeline and a trigger. Mufti Logic will still not hold true, Now again imagine If we had no concept of creation, we might not see the universe as a “beginning.” We might see it as a Brute existence or Default State of Existence.
Example: Mufti: Imagine a man with no memory of factories or ideas of creation. He stands in a void and suddenly, a single stone appears. He doesn’t know what ‘creation’ is. But he is a thinking being, He will still ask: ‘Why is there a stone instead of nothing?’
Suppose a man stands on a plain. Suddenly, water begins to fall from the sky. Even without knowing what a “sprinkler” is, the man will think, “Someone is giving me water. Why is this happening to me?” He assumes the rain is a gift or a task or command of God.
Here again to a mind without “creation,” the rain isn’t a gift; it is a condition. He doesn’t ask “Why?” . The rain is simply a new property of the environment. The “Why” only appears when the man thinks the rain was meant for his thirst. It appears in creation when he thinks he is special.
Next ,Mufti refined his argument for the sake of better understanding of the Opponent, “Whatever is bound by time and space is contingent. Whatever is contingent must have had a beginning. Whatever has a beginning cannot be eternal. When contingent things exist, we arrive at the concept of a ‘Necessary Being.” This is that Necessary Being whose non-existence is impossible, because if this Being did not exist, nothing would ever come into existence at all. All these contingent things are entirely dependent upon that one Necessary Being. This is a common-sense point.”
First Mufti created a God, then artificially assigned qualities to him. We already have discussed how the idea of creation actually came into existence in the first place. What led Mufti to think that things bound in time and space are contingent ? Things in Time and Space are always creation?. Every thing that exists must have begining? Contingent things can not be eternal? Are these proven facts ?
Is God Really All-Powerful?
This is the most interesting part of the Mufti Argument. This is the final sum up of Mufti Logic , “A Necessary Being that is independent, because if it were dependent, it would not be necessary. A being that is eternal, because if it had a beginning, it would itself be contingent. A being that is powerful, because actualizing contingent things requires power. A being that is intelligent and knowledgeable, because this universe is running precisely under specific forms and specific laws of nature.”
For a religious person, creation or existence itself is proof of God. But if we dive deeper, we will find that creation actually disproves God.
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-wise God create a universe in the first place? The godly process of creation implies intent or desire but what desire can God have? Why is God so ambitious? Why does He need this universe? Can such a desire-filled, ambitious entity truly be a God? If God created the universe, that universe must have been a necessity for Him.”
The ideal position for God must be a state of no creation. Actually, this argument was presented by the Purva Mimamsa school of Indian philosophy. Mimamsa philosophers directly challenged the intent of God to disprove the existence of God.
Example: “If God has desire, then God is imperfect. If God has no desire, then God has no reason to create. In both cases, creation by God becomes incoherent.” (Mīmāṃsā Sūtras of Jaimini, 300 BCE-200 BCE
Universal Possessor of Things
Why Omnipotent God created the Universe 14 Billion Years ago.“creation implies change or action. change implies lack.lack conflicts with full power and full possession.”
In science, creation simply means the transformation of energy and a change of state. Does God also transform into something? If He creates something new, it shows that He is not omnipotent. He does not own all things; to fulfill His desire, He must act and create things beyond his possession. Even if God transforms himself into the universe, His omnipotence still breaks. An ideal God should be all-knowing and all-possessing.
Argument of Infinite Regression
During debate Mufti asked, “Who created that being? What caused it? And what caused that?” endlessly this is called infinite regress of causes, which is a logical fallacy. Conceptually, infinity is possible for example, counting numbers one, two, three endlessly. But I am not speaking conceptually. Show in practical reality that an infinite regress of causes is possible. If it is possible, we will accept it. Provide an example. And if it is not possible, then only one option remains: the Necessary Being.”
In this section will prove how the Problem of Infinite Regress actually defies the very existence of God and his revealed message. Mufti made the claim that infinite Regress is not possible in the real world( though he accepted mathematically it is possible) , it is again a claim and not scientific proven fact. Mufti is again trapped in his limited worldly experience. But for sake of argument we accept that infinite regress is not possible, but this will open a new pandora box of problems.
Suppose Religion $R$ is based on a revelation from God to Prophet $A$. For the rest of humanity, this is not a direct experience; it is Testimony.
Now
- To believe Prophet $A$ is telling the literal truth, you need a “Voucher” (Person $B$).
- But Person $B$ is also a human being. To believe Person $B$ is not mistaken or lying about $A$, you need Person $C$.
- This creates a recursive principle: Any human witness $N$ requires a witness $N+1$ to be validated.
If this chain goes on forever (or ends with someone we can’t verify), the “certainty” of the message never actually reaches the listener. It stays at 0% certainty because every link in the chain is a potential point of failure. To solve this God Must appear to all people in all time to avoid infinite regress.
Source of Morality
Writing this section is a very painful and sadistic part of the entire book writing journey. It is painful because a Learned Man like Mufti seems to be ignorant about Evolution of Life and Human Society. It is not only Mufti but many other religious people around the world do not believe in Evolution. So far we dealt with the physical aspect of the Universe. Now we dive into a psychological one.
Mufti Present an argument: Therefore, many things are objectively evil or good, and many things are subjective. What is subjectively moral or immoral is decided by social consensus or personal preference. But objective morality—which includes justice, a point he repeated several times—is objective. It is not subjective. If you say it is subjective, then my question to you is: if oppression is declared ‘right’ through social consensus, would you justify oppression?
So here arguments show a lack of understanding of evolution. Why are we moral? Why do humans want to do good things and avoid bad things? What causes even a child, who has not yet learned social norms, to follow these rules? Even if we were to leave a child alone in a forest, they would still possess that moral instinct. But why? How do we know what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’? Do we truly need a written book to tell us, or is there a divine force behind it?
All living beings want to live. But why do we want to live? That is a different question, which we will discuss in another book. What is Morality? Morality is the sense of right and wrong. To nature, nothing is inherently right or wrong; however, for a living being, “Right” is defined as anything that aids in survival.
For example,
- killing a fellow human being creates disorder within the social group and jeopardizes the survival of the collective, as social animals depend on one another. Over the course of evolution, actions that helped a species survive became “good” moral acts, while those that threatened survival became “immoral.”
- Sexual Violence: Rape is wrong because it violates consent. From a biological perspective, it deprives a female of the agency to choose the most viable genetic partner for her offspring.
- Self-Harmful Habits: Smoking is considered wrong (or “bad”) because it causes physical harm and can lead to the death of a living being, contradicting the fundamental drive to survive.
| Humans often feel a moral obligation to protect the terminally ill, the severely disabled, or the elderly who can no longer hunt, gather, or reproduce. | Humans feel obligation, because every idea of death traumatizes them. Helping old and ill people is just setting good social morals. |
| History is full of individuals who stood against their entire social group because of a “personal” sense of right and wrong (e.g., abolitionists in a slave-owning society or whistleblowers in a corrupt government). | These lone wolves bring new ideas ,which are more suitable for Group survival in the long run. They are not acting as individual dissenters. |
| Imagine a person who finds a wallet full of money in the middle of a desert with no witnesses. If they choose not to take it because they feel it is “wrong,” who are they helping? | It is again ideal for social evolution. If he sees that a wallet is a precious thing of others, he will follow social norms. If he has never seen a wallet then the Moral Dilemma will not arise to him. |
| If morality is purely about social survival, how do you explain inter-species morality? | It is again the universal Idea of Death ,Pain and more Deeper Genetic or Evolutionary history. Humans know Death is the ultimate end of survival. So he feels pain. |
| People today feel “moral outrage” over a war happening 5,000 miles away, or they donate money to save children in another country they will never visit. | Again here is the idea of Death is in Play. Children may be living in other countries but the idea of death in the biological world is the ultimate nightmare. |
Argument of Intelligent Design
The argument of intelligent design is deeply self-centric. It assumes that whatever exists must exist for us. Humans look at the world from their own position and then project purpose onto it. A girl naturally feels that being a girl is the best state to exist in, just as a boy feels the same about being a boy. This does not prove that either state was specially designed as “best”; it only shows that living beings adapt to and justify the condition they find themselves in. In the same way, all existing states of nature appear optimal to us by default, not because they were designed for us, but because we have no alternative reality to compare them with.
Mufti presented his argument like this , ” The reason is this: imagine you are walking down a road and you enter a garden. There, you see flowers arranged to spell out: ‘I love Javed Akhtar.’ (And I really do, I love you, sir).
Now, when you reach that spot, tell me—would you say, ‘Wow, what a wonderful result of natural selection’? Is this natural selection? No. This is precisely the design. There is a designer behind it. Therefore, if someone refuses to accept such a common-sense fact—that this Universe, which functions so precisely, just created itself—I believe there is no greater stupidity than that. It is an irrational position.”
The Mufti is mixing up human language with how nature works. We understand a line like “I love Javed Akhtar” because language is something humans created. Words have meaning only because people agree on them and use them with intention. When we see a sentence, we know a mind is behind it.
Nature does not work like this. The universe does not speak and it does not send messages. What looks like precision is simply how things are forced to behave. When you pour water into a cup, it takes the shape of the cup. When it flows into a crack, it becomes thin and long. Water is not deciding anything. It is just responding to pressure and surroundings. Change the container and the shape changes on its own.
The same happens everywhere. Salt always forms neat cubes, not because someone planned it, but because the particles can join only in certain ways. A river twists and turns toward the sea, not because it has a goal, but because it follows the slope and avoids obstacles. If the ground were different, the river’s path would be different too.
The universe is no different. It takes the form allowed by its conditions. If those conditions were different, the universe would look different. Seeing intention or a message in this is a mistake. Meaning comes from the mind. Nature shows regularity, not a speaker behind it.
Natural Selection is not “random chance”; it is a filter. It is a non-random process where only what “works” survives. The beauty of a flower is not a “letter” written to us; it is a functional tool evolved to attract pollinators. We see “design” only because we are looking at the survivors of billions of years of trial and error.
Self Obsession of Human
Mountains, rivers, clouds, seasons, winters, monsoons, and summers were not created with human comfort in mind. They existed long before humans and will exist long after. Nature did not adjust itself to suit us; we adjusted ourselves to survive within nature. If conditions had been different, either a different kind of life would have emerged, or no life at all. Calling the present arrangement “perfectly designed” confuses survival with intention.
The idea of perfection is again problematic because it depends on perspective and conditions. For example, having tyres instead of legs would be far more perfect for fast and long-distance travel. If perfection were the goal, why were humans not given tyres instead of legs? The simple answer is that our legs were not designed; they evolved. Human legs evolved from fins through a long biological process shaped by environment and survival needs, not by an idea of what would be “best” in an absolute sense.
Perfection also changes with location and circumstance. Ask a person living in the Saharan Desert whether nature feels perfect, and the answer will likely be very different from someone living in a fertile river valley. The same nature that appears balanced to one person feels harsh and unforgiving to another. This was also true when early humans were struggling to survive while migrating out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. Life was dangerous, uncertain, and far from perfect.
The idea of a perfect world also collapses during natural disasters. Earthquakes, floods, droughts, and famines do not feel like expressions of perfection to those who suffer through them. If nature were truly perfect in an absolute sense, such widespread suffering would be hard to explain. What we call perfection is usually just what happens to suit us at a given time and place. It is a human judgment, not an objective feature of the universe.
Argument of Burden of Proof
You cannot have a “burden of proof” for a vacuum. You can only have proof for a container that is missing its content
In the last section of the debate, Mufti shifted the burden of proof on the opponent. He said, “If I say ‘There is no one in that room,’ I have made a knowledge claim. If I say ‘I don’t know, there might be or might not be,’ that is not a claim. But when I say ‘No one is there’ or ‘Someone is there,’ both are claims, and both carry the burden of proof.”
To refute this fallacy , we will use the Nayaya school of Philosophy, because it beautifully sums up the entire problem.
Absence (Abhava) has a specific ontological “weight.” It is not “nothingness”; it is a knowable reality.The statement “No one is there” is not a “claim” in the sense of a guess; it is a perception of a qualifier. If I say “The cloth is red,” “red” is a qualifier. If I say “The room is person less,” “person-less” is a qualifier (Visesana) that is physically present in the room (Visesya).
If you see the room and it is empty, “No one is there” is the Truth of the Locus. And to say “Someone might be there” (the middle ground) is to deny the validity of your own senses (Pramana-Samplava).
What are property of empty room-
- Light is Off.
- Lack of Motion.
- Lack of sound.
- Lack of other visible marks.
So, to say there is no one in the room, it is valid inference. And if Mufti says, there is someone inside the room, he has shown the reason (hetu).Why Mufti is facing this problem, actually the problem is the same as Intelligent Designer i.e God.
Conclusion- Mufti in The debate appear to be winner due to his Good voice command and sharpeness of Delivery of Argument, but at deep if we see Mufti has not produce any new things, these claims are centuareies old and has already been refuted by Philospher and Scientist. Javed Akhtar produce wonderful argument, though Delivery was not very sharp,his argument perfectly allign with Philosphy and Science. Javed Akhatar is Poet, his style of delivery of rebuttal was very loose , though rebuttal had no problem.
From reader point of view this Debate Proved the limit of Religion and Belief. As far as Debate is concerned there is no clear winner and looser. Javed Akhatar Could not satifsfied Mufti about how universe originate, He took strong scientifc stance if God can be without cause , so can this universe. Similarly, Mufit failed to satisfied human suffering, calling human suffereing as test, make him biggest primary looser in the Debate. Further Mufti was failed to address why non perfection exist in nature.
Source- These pieces of thought borrowed from Book Name- Mufti Shamail Vs Javed Akhtar’s Debate, Who One , Who Lost ? By Pardeep Kumar, Full Book with much argument and counter argument is available on Amazon and Google Book.
