Was at least the first life form created?

[Tiberius]

1. If life in our universe (space/time continuum) never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy, then at least the first life form to exist in our universe was created.

False dichotomy. It does not follow that if life could have never spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy, that therefore creation is the only valid alternative. The only thing you can say here is that if life never arose spontaneously from non-living matter/energy, then life came about by some other event that is not spontaneously arising from non-living matter/energy.

In other words, if P is the proposition that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter/energy, and we know that P did not happen, then the only thing we can say with certainty is that the answer lies in Q, a set of all possible explanations that doesn't include the original P.

What you are saying is that if ¬P then R, where R is another explanation. This is logically invalid unless R is equal to the set Q.

2. Life in our universe never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy.

3. Therefore, at least the first life form to exist in our universe was created.

This is a logically valid syllogism.

Given the invalid proposition at the start, the rest of the syllogism is invalid. Here is one I would agree to:

1) If life in our universe (space/time continuum) never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy, then at least the first life form to exist in our universe did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter/energy.

2. Life in our universe never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy.

3. Therefore, at least the first life form to exist in our universe did not arise spontaneously form non-living matter/energy.

The truthfulness of the first statement, the hypothetical proposition or major premise, to me seems self evident since I cannot think of another possibility. There may be one out there and if there is, I’m sure you will let me know. As I wrote the last sentence, I did think of another possibility, i.e., that life within our universe has always existed. However, I do not think that would be appropriate here since I’m not sure anyone here actually holds that position.

So you admit two things, that this entire argument is also based on an argument from ignorance; that just because you cannot think of any other methods, your two must stand. Sorry, but this is a blatant logical fallacy. Further, you contradict your own argument by thinking up another possibility, yet discard it because nobody here believes in it. Personal belief doesn't come into it at all; if there is another explanation, no-matter how controversial or insane, it is still a valid other explanation for the purposes of your argument.

The second statement, the minor premise, I believe to be true. I know some of you might be thinking at this point: “This guy is crazy because scientists have proven that abiogenesis is a fact.” My answer to that would be that I disagree that scientists have proven that abiogenesis is a fact. A bunch of ideas about how abiogenesis might have occurred without any experimental evidence that it is, in fact, possible (experiments where abiogenesis occurs) is not sufficient evidence to prove abiogenesis is a fact (at least for me). Furthermore, I think the repeated attempts at abiogenesis by scientists and/or the failure to achieve this by scientists provides operational scientific support for this statement. So if you think that the second statement is false, please point me to some reproducible experimentation where some scientist has gotten abiogenesis to occur.

Yet another argument from ignorance, this time of the type "because X has not been proven, X is false". This is a logical fallacy; none of us know the future, and so you have no justification to argue that scientists in the future will never be able to prove abiogenesis. Thus, since both 2 premises of your argument are deeply flawed, your conclusion is as well.