An atheists guide to reality

[Angrboda]

It's not necessary to have detailed knowledge of something as opposed to a simplified form of knowledge for it to be either a good explanation or useful explanation.

As I've already explained in great detail, yes it is. Since you have no way of showing that your explanation is likely true, it's just an assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence or explanation, can be dismissed without evidence or explanation. People can see what happens when they do or don't eat food. We can't see what it would mean to have a spirit and for that spirit to have the property of meaning. Therefore your analogy fails. Our determining the use of food is totally unlike your determination of the properties of the spirit. It's just making up untestable shit. It's a "god of the gaps" explanation. You're just hiding all the work of explaining in a mysterious MacGuffin that is neither detectable nor testable.