>Hate to be a killjoy, but a proof that negates its own proposition is itself invalid rather than just the proposition or conclusion.

Sorry, John, but I don't follow.

Using four different premise I came up with two different conclusions in two different arguments. Not one proof.

The two arguments were valid, but the two conclusions contradicted. That means that at least one of the arguments was not sound. And that means that at least one of the premise in at least one of the arguments was false.

The idea that "God holds the atoms together" can not soundly stand if "God exists and is omnipotent" is accepted as true.