You are welcome to wait for a house (or an atom) to "emerge". I respect your choice. My approach is to focus on an alternative that is almost an infinite number of times more probable. (See above)
It is the "notion of emergence" that is a purely axiomatic statement that cannot be proven by observations. My approach is exactly the opposite - it is based on EXTENSIVE OBSERVATIONS of the Observable Reality. Isn't it how all laws of physics are verified?
I have studied laws of physics for the first 45 years of my life and hold a PhD in this discipline since 1979. So-called laws of physics comprise extremely intelligent and coherent set of rules that govern aspects of the material reality. Note that our understanding of these rules is determined and limited by our Intellect.
Have you ever thought how and why did these "laws" come to existence? Have you ever thought what would happen if they were not so intelligent? Do you realize how much intelligence is required to begin to comprehend or even become aware of these "laws" ?
When you deliberately disregard the overwhelming evidence of the Intelligent Design of Nature around us - you will most likely miss the essence of everything, including the essence of your own life.
On the other hand, the approach of seeking LOGIC (an aspect of intelligence) in Nature always leads to better explanations of the Observable Reality, better understanding of laws of physics, and even enables us to predict the future. Please read articles at NUjournal of Discovery for more details.