Life is evidence that life is possible - that matter can live - not evidence for the existence of a god or gods, That is one possible explanation for how life came to exist in the universe. The other is that it arose naturalistically through abiogenesis, a second possibility. Neither can be ruled in or out at this time, but they can be ordered.
The naturalisitic hypothesis is more parsimonious, and therefore preferred, since it doesn't need a god. You seem to have dropped the naturalistic possibility from your list with no more justification than that you just don't see how it could have happened without an intelligent designer. That's a logical error called an incredulity fallacy
Another logical error that you have made is to try to account for something that you find too complex and unlikely to have formed without an intelligent designer by positing something even more complex and unlikely, a god, to account for life, but making no effort to account for this god's existence, a special pleading fallacy.
Elsewhere, you implied that if we lack an answer such as the mechanism that generated the early universe or life, we should just assume a god is responsible. That's a fallacy from ignorance (that's not an insult but a reference to lack of knowledge) that implies something is untrue because we don't know that it is true (or vice versa). You've made both errors when you assume that gods exist because nobody can prove they don't while at the same time rejecting even the possibility of a naturalistic explanation because nobody can prove to you that it is correct, together forming another example of special pleading (an unjustified double standard).
I believe in logical thinking, thinking that life and the complexity of it and how human brains work to think of it as just happened to be so without any prior plan is like thinking that Monkeys can make cars.
No, your example is known to be impossible. More intelligence than a monkey has is needed to design and build cars.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand is not known to be impossible. There is no known reason why life and mind couldn't have emerged from the universe without gods. False equivalence fallacy
And your logical skills aren't as good as you seem to think. People don't learn to think logically or critically without a commitment to such things as skepticism, reason, empiricism, and learning to evaluate evidence and arguments properly. It's a skill that comes from years of practice, usually with a university education.
As soon as an element believed by faith is inserted into the argument, the reason train is derailed, just as if you are adding a column of multi-digit numbers, you must remain faithful to the rules of addition at every step, a single error anywhere derailing the process and resulting in an incorrect answer. It needs to be done carefully and methodically or it generates garbage even if 99.9% of the individual additions are done properly. This is how faith corrupts the process:
- “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
And he would never add properly again.
It's my experience that few creationists develop these skills, nor do they learn the science that is known, and so their claims fail when they present them to others that have mastered those skills.
I won't believe in God once I see a factory making living babies.
If you examine yourself closely, you'll see that that is very unlikely to be true. You came to your present position by faith, not evidence, and no evidence will move you from it. Let me help you out: if and when man synthesizes life - even human life - starting with nonlife (that is, de novo), your answer can be that that proves intelligent design was needed (which would be yet another fallacy), and also that nobody can prove to you that that is in fact what happened. Faith is immune to reason and evidence.
The evidence [for a god] is life and our minds
No, evidence for a god is something that is better explained by a supernaturalisitic explanation than a naturalistic one. The existence of life and mind only prove that they are possible, not that they came from a god for reasons already given.
