1. Contingency, Causation, and the Necessary Being
Nadwi’s anchor argument was classical but clean:
-
Everything in the universe is contingent—it depends on something else.
-
An infinite regress of causes explains nothing.
-
Therefore, existence logically terminates in a necessary, uncaused reality.
Not “God of the gaps.”
Not “science hasn’t explained it yet.”
But a strict logical claim: something must exist by necessity, not dependence.
This is why philosophers immediately linked his reasoning to ontological and cosmological arguments, long debated in peer-reviewed philosophy—far from mosque pulpits.
2. Science Explains How, Not Why
When Akhtar leaned on scientific progress, Nadwi didn’t resist it—he compartmentalized it.
Science:
-
Describes mechanisms
-
Maps patterns
-
Predicts outcomes
What it cannot do, Nadwi argued, is answer why existence itself exists rather than nothing.
Rejecting God because of science, therefore, is a category error. One domain cannot invalidate the other.
