Deception loves to hide

I am about to undertake setting up "the problem of meaning" for the atheist. I am not here going to try and show how the theists are able to maintain their sense of meaning, but perhaps I will come back to it. Let's start with a few thesis definitions.

Let's call the first the 'meaning thesis':

{MT} = the emotional/intellectual reaction a conscious agent has to concepts, situations, surroundings or other conscious agents

It should be noted that MT is true for the theist and the atheist alike. However, my question is: Is this a valid argument if God does not exist?

The first assumption we must make is that one must be conscious to make such a claim. This may seem obvious, but it is an important subtlety to my argument. Let's devise a working definition for our purposes and call it the 'consciousness thesis':

{CT} = An agent that is aware of it's self and it's surroundings

Now if there is no God CT must be explainable by the 'naturalistic thesis'

{NT} = All existence is the product of mindless chance combined with the natural laws and time

The best atheist explanation I have yet heard on the reconciliation of CT & NT is the concept of emergence. Basically stating that our minds or what we call "us" or "I" should ultimately be explainable through emergent properties between the interactions of the elemental parts that form our whole. "We are more than the sum of our parts" the adherents of this philosophy will say.

Matt is also fond of saying that the experience of a situation is something more (or perhaps different) than the explanation of it.

But what exactly is meant by this? Surly it is not to be assumed that in light of NT there is an increase of some kind of substantial reality. All that can be allowed is that the result of situation or phenomenon X is inscrutable.

Therefore, if NT, then CT can not truly be 'more than' the summation of it's parts, it is then only inscrutable interactions of the lower essential parts.

So what then can be said of meaning? If NT, then MT is yet another emergent property of the system. The aurora borealis is also an emergent property of the system. Does it have meaning? The objection can then be made by the NT holders, "but we are different!" My response would be "well sure, but in what way?". If any fantastic occurrence can be explained purely in terms of emergence where does meaning come in?

The atheist will be tempted to reply that CT can preserve our sense of meaning, but if CT is purely an emergent property of NT where does meaning get smuggled in?

It would seem to me that though it is not disputed that you feel your life has meaning and that you find certain things to be meaningful, if one considers NT, you are forced to realize that you are simply a very small part of a fantastic, albeit meaningless, reaction. You may want to hold onto NT and MT in the worst way, but I do not see how one can allow the other.

One further point I'd like to make is that if NT I believe MT if fundamentally broken. If NT, then "I exist", in the strongest sense, cannot be upheld. "you" do not exist as a substantial reality. What you consider to be "you" is a temporary synthesis of sub atomic particles. "you" are but a phase in a reaction. Here again, the matter that you call "you" can only have as much meaning as the purpose you are meant to serve. Thus, according to NT your purpose and therefore meaning is null.

Let me be clear in my position that I do not believe this about you. I believe you are filled with meaning and your life has purpose to a degree that you cannot now even begin to realize. I am merely trying to help you see that the atheist position does not allow for the life you wish to live unless you feel comfortable living a life of fundamental self deception.