Well unlike you I'm really enjoying this discussion - because I'm in the middle of studying this free online course on logic( I highly recommend it by the way), and it is helping me practice what I'm learning.
The reason I "threw out the window" the scientific studies you pointed to is that they do not logically point to your conclusion.
​
​
Premise 1: The subjective reality of a human depends on a human's consciousness.
Premise 2: Human consciousness derives from a deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. ["Quantum consciousness"] {controversial study}
Premise 3: According to experiments, antimatter and matter should have been canceled out. ["The universe shouldn't exist"]
Conclusion 1: There must exist a god as a being of pure consciousness that shapes reality through the mind.
The conclusion does not follow from your premises.
You mistakenly believe that Premise 3 means there must be God Consciousness, because you think that otherwise there's no possible explanation for Premise 3.
So you are implicitly adding a premise 4:
The only possible way for there to be more matter than antimatter, is if a Conscious God made it that way.
That makes your argument circular. {I've highlighted the circular aspect in itallics}
Premise 1: The subjective reality of a human depends on a human's consciousness.
Premise 2: Human consciousness derives from a deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. ["Quantum consciousness"] {controversial study}
Premise 3: According to experiments, antimatter and matter should have been canceled out. ["The universe shouldn't exist"]
Premise 4: The only possible way for there to be more matter than antimatter, is if a god as a being of pure consciousness that shapes reality through the mind made it that way {NOT A VALID PREMISE - you haven't proven this}
Conclusion 1: There must exist a god as a being of pure consciousness that shapes reality through the mind.
I think you're trying to support premise 4 by saying: "If it's not God, what else could it be? We don't have any other accepted explanation yet, so it must be God".
That does not make the premise valid - it is the "God of the Gaps" fallacy, a variant on an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.