we're completely different that no animal can be compared to us
Any two things, processes, or relationships can be compared (list of commonalities) and contrasted (their differences). Somebody asked you to compare and contrast man with chimps. If you do, you will see a huge list of commonalities (eukaryotic, multicellular, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, primates, great apes, same genetic code, same Krebs cycle, same oxidative phosphorylation pathway, same cell populations in the marrow and blood) and differences (diet, dentition, relative length of the arms to legs, means of locomotion [chimps brachiate], and literacy/numeracy among others).
we feel sad, happy, smile. cry, think,
My dog does all of that. Put those in the list of similaries.
Forget about God if you hate to think about such an idea
but still our existence isn't a matter of coincidence and chance.
That's an unsupported claim. Although it may be correct, there is no reason to believe that is at this time. Blind (or undirected) mechanisms seem to have the ability to generate complex organisms from their ingredients given sufficient time and a relatively stable environment conducive to abiogenesis and biological evolution.
If they don't, we don't know it yet, and therefore cannot rule them out..
Do you know the informal logical fallacy based in incredulity - basically, "I can't see how it could have happened, therefore I am declaring it impossible and scratching it off the list of candidate hypotheses." That's a logical error.
Perhaps it would help us to understand what you are talking about. Because you point is lost on me.
my point that humans made unique compared to other animals and that
isn't by accident, this is a plan and it's up to you if you prefer to close your eyes and mind.
But it's you that has closed his mine. Gods are still on my list of candidate hypotheses for the formation of the universe and the life in it because I have no way to rule them out just as you have no way to rule out a godless universe and blind, undirected, natural processes. The difference is that you have prematurely and unjustifiably truncated your list.
Furthermore, according to Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony, we prefer the simplest explanation that accounts for the relevant observations to date. The naturalistic one requires no gods. The supernaturalistic ones do, which adds additional complexity not demonstrably necessary. That moves supernaturalistic hypotheses to the second position on the list.
I'm not promoting for God, so please don't append God to the topic.
Sure you are, just not overtly. You position is a common one, and is always motivated by a desire to undermine the science that seems to contradict religious beliefs. What other reason is there to say that naturalistic processes are insufficient to account for what we see around us? Who else does that but the religious who feel threatened by naturalistic science?
You mentioned aliens earlier as an alternative to Gods as intelligent designers, but that just moves the problem back a step. How did these aliens come to be? Did their ancestors have an evolutionary phase following naturalistic abiogenesis? If so, we're just transferring the platform where all of this occurred from earth to an exoplanet
But you can't prove that God doesn't exist
No need. Until a god manifests unequivocably, we live as if no god exists, just as we live as no vampires or leprechauns exist without any proof that they don't. Seeing no vampires or leprechauns, and no evidence for them, is a good enough reason to live as if they had been proven to not exist, and to consider the thinking of anyone that believes in their existence anyway faith-based and flawed.
I assume that you are an avampirist and aleprechaunist as well, and would be equally unmoved if I told you that you can prove that they don't exist. So what, right?
