Argument against atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

There was a brief moment where you seemed to be on the verge of coherence Amker. The moment has passed.

if consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems,
(it appears to be exactly that)

it is not a property of the universe, but just something that can be found within the universe, like snowflakes
(k, so far so good).

But holding such a belief necessitates that you don't actually believe snowflakes exist outside of your own mind.
(you just went off the rails)

The above has been the formula for every statement you've made so far, and it's been a bad formula for the same reasons every single time. You're missing bits in the middle, and your conclusions don't follow.

Try:
Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources.
Logic isn't material, so atheism lacks any objective source for logic.
Without an objective source for logic, atheism cannot employ logic.
Therefore atheism is self refuting.
Since atheism is refuted, theism must be true.
God exists.

or-

There are some objective logical/moral absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical/moral absolutes.
These logical/moral absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical/moral absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical/moral absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists.

Then, sprinkle in a bit about how people who believe in this or that (any concept that can be defined as a logical/moral absolute) have a belief that must stem from a belief in what is "most correctly termed" a monotheistic deity. You may have to add in a bit to justify monotheism. From the language and definitions you've been insisting upon, and the conclusions you've been attempting to draw, this seems to be the argument you're looking for.