The Delhi debate on the question “Does God exist?” created noise, excitement, and strong reactions. What it did not create was clarity. People went in hoping to hear a serious exchange on belief and disbelief. They came out arguing over personalities, applause lines, and side issues. Somewhere along the way, God quietly disappeared from the debate. This is not a small question. Humans have asked it for thousands of years. Empires rose with it. Moral systems were built around it. Wars were fought in its name. To treat such a question casually, or emotionally, is to do injustice to the subject itself. Sadly, that is exactly what happened. Javed Akhtar, a renowned writer and lyricist of Indian film industry never really argued against the existence of God. Instead, he argued against the world as it is. He spoke about terrorism, about children dying in wars, about religion being used to kill, about suffering that never seems to end. These are disturbing truths. No sane person denies them. But none of them answer the question being debated. Human cruelty does not prove divine absence. At most, it proves human failure. The moment suffering is presented as proof that God does not exist, logic collapses. If humans misuse religion, the blame lies with humans, not with the idea of God. That difference was repeatedly ignored. There was also a deliberate mixing of categories. Religion, politics, identity, and God were pushed into the same basket. This is convenient in public debates because it creates instant emotional reaction. But it is intellectually careless.
One can oppose religion and still believe in God. One can believe in God and still reject religious authority. None of this was acknowledged clearly. Akhtar’s arguments were emotionally effective, not intellectually tight. They worked as speeches, not as reasoning. They generated applause, not answers. A debate, however, is not meant to be a performance. It is meant to stay with the question, even when it becomes uncomfortable. That patience was missing. On the other side, in support of existence of God, Mufti Shamail Nadwi tried to defend belief, but his defence was weak where it mattered most. He relied too heavily on faith and too little on explanation. In a debate that included skeptics, this was a serious mistake. Faith may satisfy believers, but it convinces no one else.
When asked difficult questions, the answers often went in circles. Saying that God knows best or that humans cannot understand divine wisdom may be true for a believer, but it is not an argument. It is an escape.
“The debate over God’s existence is less about the conclusion and more about the intellectual integrity of the participants. To avoid turning profound inquiry into mere entertainment, we must practice restraint, discipline, and patience. The true failure isn’t a lack of consensus, but a breakdown in our collective ability to think and communicate clearly.”
A serious defence of God requires clarity, not refuge. The classical arguments for God’s existence are not new. They are old, tested, criticised, and refined. They are not perfect, but they deserve proper presentation. Unfortunately, they were delivered hurriedly and without depth. As a result, belief appeared fragile, almost defensive. Another failure was the inability to clearly distance God from the crimes of believers. Instead of firmly stating that human violence has nothing to do with God, the defence slipped into justifying religion. This allowed criticism of religion to look like criticism of God, which again confused the debate. What followed was not engagement but overlap. One speaker attacked religion while claiming to reject God. The other defended belief without grounding it in reason. They spoke simultaneously, not to each other. The audience was left choosing sides based on emotion, not understanding. The problem is not that there was no winner. The problem is that the question itself was abandoned.
The existence of God is not settled by applause or outrage. It demands seriousness from both belief and disbelief. Believers must accept that faith does not answer every challenge. Skeptics must accept that suffering alone does not settle metaphysical questions. Philosophy is not a courtroom. It does not deliver final verdicts. It explores positions honestly. That spirit was absent. Public debates fail when speakers play to their supporters. When applause becomes the goal, truth becomes secondary. The Delhi event felt closer to a stage show than an intellectual encounter. Seriousness was sacrificed for comfort. More worrying was how easily the discussion picked up communal and political overtones. In a deeply divided society, this is dangerous. God should not become another casualty of ideological warfare. If such debates are to mean anything, they need restraint. Speakers need intellectual discipline. Moderators need firmness. Audiences need patience. Without these, debates become entertainment, not inquiry. God may exist or may not. Reasonable people will continue to disagree. But if we cannot even discuss the question without confusion, emotion, and distraction, then the real failure is not belief or disbelief. It is our inability to think carefully.
(The author is a teacher and a researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
