I can't concede on that. I mean when we know nothing absolute and when we know nothing about 't = 0', and when consciousness is something that is already in existence and not nearly completely understood, then 'conscious absolute reality'*is* as good a guess as any other. Hey, basically we have two guesses for a foundation of reality; either finite or infinite. And also, conscious or unconscious. Is our consciousness an illusion? That I won't buy so easily.<quoted text>I allow that god is possible, but god is not as good as any other guess. Our consciousness does not set a precedent for a universe spanning consciousness. That would be a matter of type, not of degree. A god like consciousness would be so different from our consciousness so as to render any comparison between the two meaningless. And even if our consciousness could be compared to a deity like consciousness, that wouldn't make god just as good a guess as anything else. Then we could point to any object or force or phenomenon that we know to exist and claim that under the right circumstances, it might have created the universe. The assumption that consciousness might be responsible for the universe is rooted in human tradition, there is no evidence for such a thing outside of our own minds. So, possible - yes. Just as likely, no.
But I do understand your reasoning for your belief. I just don't share it. I think the difference between my belief and yours is rooted in whether to believe consciousness is part of something bigger/eternal or not. You have your ways of justifying it and I have mine I suppose.
People get easily duped into thinking science shows anything definate about the origins of consciousness. Just because we aren't able to sense any other conscious reality doesn't mean there isn't one.
Just like virtual particles blip off our radar, why couldn't the same be with the true origins of consciousness?