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

[paulpablo]

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.

This is a late reply, but hamza says that if we knew everything about the brain we would still not know what it's like for you to have a conscious experience, and we would not know why consciousness emerges from physical processes.

I actually laughed at the next bit when his friend says "So this is not a god of the gaps fallacy" and before he can even finish saying that Hamza says "It is NOT a god of the gaps fallacy."

It is a god of the gaps fallacy.  You can't really say with much certainty what you would discover if you knew everything about the human brain because we don't know about the human brain, so I don't get how he knows we wouldn't discover why consciousness emerges from physical processes if we did know about the brain. 

It seems to me that evidence points towards consciousness coming from the brain, so if we knew everything about the brain I don't see why it's outside the realms of possibility that we would know at least something about consciousness.