If someone says to me "consciousness, therefore god", what's the best way to respond?

[GUBU]

I'm pretty sure claiming "consciousness, therefore god" is an argument from ignorance, but I'm not sure that's the best way to respond. I know there must be a proper name for this argument but I either can't remember what that name is, or I've not heard the name used before. I've personally mainly been tackling the biological and psychical (e.g. astronomy/cosmology) arguments against religion. I find biology and physics more interesting and, as a result, I feel as though I've neglected the psychological side of things.

A religionist may say "How did we get from clumps of sub-atomic particles/atoms/cells to being conscious?" That would be where the "argument from ignorance" comes in. But I think that's too simplistic an answer. Or maybe I'm over thinking this.

Perhaps it is just best to say "I don't know" in relation to consciousness. Just like the only honest answer to the creation of our universe is "I don't know" (because it's arrogant to claim otherwise). I'll be interested to see how consciousness affects the many-worlds interpretation (if it is proven), but that's something we're far away from learning about right now.

Some context:

I needed a good laugh to cheer me up, so I went looking for more "I'm totally not an Islamist but I used to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and I'm reluctant to condemn them" Hamza Tzortis - something I do from time to time (though less often now). His newest video, "I Am an Atheist" proves God!, was very confusing and incoherent but it at least got me thinking about consciousness. The video was full of jargon and doublespeak (which I am sure his cheer-squad don't understand either, even though they may pretend otherwise) and it made very little sense to me as a result - so I suggest not watching it. N.B. Hamza claims this argument is not "god of the gaps" but I'm pretty sure it is because it relies on us not fully understanding consciousness.

"Consciousness, therefore god" is essentially Vitalism, the idea that because we are alive that there must be something which differentiates us from non living things. What those people are arguing is Cartesian dualism, which itself stems from early christianity's incomplete adoption of Neoplatonism, especially the idea (which a full reading of Plato will show he later discarded) that there is a soul separate from the body which is the seat of consciousness.

What you really need to do here, is show anybody who uses this argument all the data and experimentation which shows that consciousness is simply an emergent property of the complexity of the human brain, and the complicatedness (complex and complicated are related but not the same, for example Langton's Ant is complex without being complicated) of the constituent parts of the brain. And this is further reinforced and magnified by the nature, size and complexity of human societies. If you build a thinking engine big enough, sophisticated enough and network it into a good number of similar engines, then you'll likely get machine intelligence.