Response:
The question posed above raises an interesting point, but it's based on a false premise. It assumes that the creation of a light bulb and the origins of the universe are comparable events, which they are not.
Let's examine the formation and destruction of thousands of stars, some even larger than Earth, that occur daily. There is no purpose behind this formation and destruction which has been happening for the last 14.8 billion years. This happens only when the Design is not INTELLIGENT, but RANDOM.
Similarly, consider the death and extinction of billions of species that occurred before the arrival of modern humans. The vast majority of these species came into existence and vanished without any discernible purpose. Again, this happens only when the Design is not INTELLIGENT, but RANDOM.
And now look at a mobile phone. You will not see even a SINGLE spare part there which is useless and has no function. This is known as Intelligent Design.
Moreover, as PB Shelley aptly pointed out, "Design must be proved before a designer is inferred." Simply put, just because something exhibits aesthetic appeal or serves a practical purpose, it doesn't necessarily imply the presence of a designer. Random, undirected natural processes can generate complex structures and patterns, such as those found in Conway's Game of Life.
It's also important to note that the argument "everything has a creator" is problematic. If we apply this reasoning consistently, we should acknowledge that Allah, too, must have had a creator. However, this line of thinking leads to infinite regression and raises questions about who created the creator's creator, ad infinitum. Alternatively, one could propose the existence of multiple deities or advanced extraterrestrial civilizations as potential creators.
In conclusion, the comparison between the creation of a light bulb and the origins of the universe is unfounded. Natural processes, rather than intelligent design, govern the formation and evolution of celestial bodies and life forms. Before jumping to conclusions about a designer, we must first establish evidence of design. Aesthetic appeal and functional purposes alone are insufficient grounds for inference. By embracing critical thought and exploring various perspectives, we can deepen our understanding of the world around us.
Hassan Radwan