What chemicals would be needed for life to form by random chance?

First of all, evolution and abiogenesis are 2 very different studies.

Difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis

Evolution: The Science of the Origin of the diversity of life we see (species, exactly what Darwin called it.)

Abiogenesis: The Science of the Origin of Life.

It does not matter if life was poofed by God, planted by aliens, arrived on a comet, arose on the early earth by the laws of chemical thermodynamics, evolution is still true. Evolution is what happened after life arose.

Chemical Thermodynamics guarantees that on the EARLY EARTH, RICH IN ORGANIC RAW MATERIAL MOLECULES, WITH A REDUCING ATMOSPHERE, ENERGY FROM THE SUN AND THE EARTH'S CORE, AN ENTIRE PLANET, LARGE OCEANS, VARIABLE CLIMATE, and BILLIONS OF YEARS TO WORK, abiogensis of life is inevitable.

The prohibition against spontaneous generation of life is based on: Life cannot arise under CURRENT CONDITIONS of an oxidizing atmosphere, THEREFORE life could NEVER have arisen spontaneously. This is a failure in logic. Change the conditions and abiogenesis is guaranteed.

There are many very good YouTube videos on Abiogenesis. Would you take the time to watch a few, if I gave you the links?

Creationists have long asserted that the chances of life forming naturally are so ... on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way

random chance is a less useful concept here. any self-replicating set of molecules might do, + lipids, all in an aqueous solution. not sure about methane solutions in terms of how encapsulations would form (assuming it's a requirement)

If you really want to learn then try science and stop repeating what creatards say. It has not be proposed that life formed by random chance nor has it been proposed that evolution occurs by random chance. Only creatards and ignorant people make this claim. This is not a claim made by scientists.

Your question shows a lack of understanding of how life arose. It was not just by random chance, as if it was a single incidence of a limited number of chemicals all coming together at the same time to produce life.

The first life form would have occurred in a very large environment with a great many basic chemicals over a long period of time as a result of random chemical combinations and recombinations that were differentially selected by a process of chemical evolution and natural selection, until simple self replicating molecules eventually developed. That, in turn, began a new process of adding over time additional components that utilized available energy to process chemicals for specific purposes. A lot of random chemical events enter the process, some of them of no value, others having some benefit, and continuing natural selection of those that helped the system become more efficient.

Eventually, a primitive cell would have formed, and that cell continued the process.

Life won't form by random chance.

That's like asking "what combination and orientation of materials would be needed to form a car by random chance". Even if you had all the parts available there is no way they assemble into a car by random processes. It's like thinking a tornado going through a wreckers yard will produce a working vehicle. They have to be assembled by intelligent designers. Even the parts had to be manufactured to precise specifications and designers had to write the specifications and other people had to make them. Anyone who thinks a car will necessarily follow if the pieces are available is deluded.

No one has ever proposed that life formed by random chance. Ever.

The experiments of Miller and Urey back in the 1950s demonstrated that the conditions we believe prevailed on the early earth, and the elements available there, would be likely to lead to the spontaneous formation of amino acids. But, it's a long way from a collection of amino acids to the formation of a clam or a toad or even a virus. Scientists today are exploring that gap. It is believed that no one early terrestrial environment could have provided all the building blocks and conditions needed for the inception of self-replicating organisms, but that the ensemble of environments, and the transport of materials through ocean and atmosphere, would have played a part in the start of life. In other words, there was no one "primordial soup" where life evolved, but rather a bunch of soup-kettles with some of them sloshing their soup seasonally (?) into others.

Prof. Yuk Yung of Caltech and Dr. Stuart Bartlett of the Earth-Life Science Institute of Tokyo are among the many scientists conducting computing experiments to determine what sequences of chemical reactions would have the most power to sustain themselves and leads towards self-replicating objects.

Differing ones at differing stages. It isn't like Earth suddenly went from having no life to having life. Life developed gradually. I think the RNA world is seen as the most likely model right now, but I'm not an expert on it.

By random chance, no chemicals would be needed at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#Via_...

For abiogenesis you need organic compounds and sht