"You can't comprehend absolute truth so how do you presume to know it's not magic?"

Not knowing what something is, is not the same as not knowing what it is not. I may not know what caused the big bang, for instance, but I am really sure it wasn't a cat.

"If we consider consciousness absolute then we can easily conclude that our consciousness creates everything we see and I've already stated this is an absurd thing to believe."

No. Sticking the word absolute in front of consciousness isn't much different from sticking it in front of table, and not everything in the universe needs to fit on that table for it to be a table, either absolutely or subjectively. You are playing far too fast and loose with definitions, and it is getting a little bit irritating.

"Absolute consciousness could easily be omniscient as we can't comprehend an absolute conscious mind."

Absolute consciousness need not be omniscient or everlasting to be absolute, it only need be certain, and your consciousness is the ONLY thing you can be absolutely certain of in solipsism.

"You believe an absolute reality exists, yet you don't believe an absolute truth exists? Can you explain how this could be possible?"

I believe an OBJECTIVE reality exists, that in no way implies I believe in our ability to make 100% accurate assessments of it. Truth is nothing but an entities statements and/or declarations concerning reality, it is never certain or perfect by definition, because it relies entirely on a persons ability to perceive said reality. A belief that an objective reality exists does not necessitate that we or any other entity must perceive it perfectly, just that a reality exists to perceive however inaccurately at all.

"Our consciousness is required for truth and objective reality to exist for ourselves, thus the same could be said for absolute truth and absolute reality, an absolute conscious mind is required for either to exist."

Word salad. A conscious entity is required for statements that can have a truth value, but a conscious entity does NOT have to exist for what those statements to describe to exist. You are treating the concept like a thing, Platonism is dead, move on.

"This very thought proves my point. Many "gods" have been thought of throughout history."

Many magical and mystical beings have been thought of throughout history as well.

"You can either look at it as man just creating "gods" or that there is one absolutely true God, that has created man in His image and has allowed man to have free will to choose Him or not choose Him."

False dichotomy. There are more than simply two ways to look at it, and many gods are not the one you describe in your definition. There could be many gods, one god, or no god at all. God could be a being, object, or force. It could be conscious or unconscious. You are purposefully narrowing these possibilities without just cause to cover a major weakness and error in your argument, which is that it could equally be used to support Smurfs or Fraggles. I would absolutely LOVE for Smurfs and Fraggles to exist, but they don't appear to.

"The only real difference between these two views is that if the former is true then our consciousness realizes our reality, which seems absurd."

More false dichotomy PLUS a strawman. I, at no point, indicated that our perception creates reality. It is you who keeps asserting that perception of reality is necessary for its existence, without evidence or qualification, which is a rather strange notion that I have only ever heard from quantum woo-woo new agers.

"If the latter is true, then this could explain why we have a moral compass and are driven to do the right thing and compare our moral standard to something beyond ourselves."

Or it could be the fact that there is a standard beyond the individual, law for instance, and we don't like being punished very much.

"The latter seems more likely to me, thus my belief in one absolutely true God."

Good for you, I don't agree.

"I can show how it's not possible for absolute evil to exist."

This should be good.

"An absolute conscious mind has always existed and will always exist and the first creatures it created were immortal beings called Angels. Each Angel was created to have free will, but they know of God objectively, we don't. God appointed one of these Angels to be the leader of all Angels and this caused that Angel to become prideful and think he could be better that God and thus the Angel was banished from absolute reality into normal reality, which God had created as well. This angel became the devil and he was able to deceive man who God also created to have free will. Man could have chosen not to listen to the devil, but we didn't and thus we gained the knowledge that the devil created in the first place "knowledge of good and evil". So you can see that evil only came about when God created creatures with their own free will. We and the angels do not have absolute consciousness and therefore absolute evil can never exist. You can't deny this all makes sense, its just starts with a belief that absolute truth must exist."

I honestly don't know where to start, you have just laid a pile of miscellaneous nonsensical crap on the table and told me to sort through it. I can only assume this was meant as a hypothetical. But here goes:

We have no reason to assume the existence of said consciousness or that of angels, but even so the choices of this supposed "absolute omniscient consciousness" appears to support that evil was INTENDED, and therefore as absolute as any other property or intended dimension of its perception. It created things with full knowledge of the results in advance, making free will a rather moot argument, as it set everything up in such a way that you can make NO CHOICE it did not intend for you to make in the first place. There is only a single solitary reality, objective reality, and this "normal reality" you speak of is actually just fluff about perception of that single solitary reality. You set up "evil" as being nothing more than simple subjective perception of this reality, making ALL subjective perceptions "evil" by default. You deny that the actions of an individual with subjective perceptions, acting in an objective reality, will actually have objective consequences which makes absolutely no sense. There are a myriad of problems in your argument, and it doesn't make much sense, and requires one HELL of a lot more than mere belief that an "absolute truth" or objective reality exists.

"Lets consider the idea that absolute truth does not exist."

I don't have to "consider" it, it is an epistemological fact. Subjective beings CANNOT perfect perception, ego all statements and declarations(statements and declarations being the only thing in existence with actual truth value) about reality are imperfect, ergo there can be no perfect or absolute truth value. It is really just that simple, and no amount of mental gymnastics will obviate this most reasonable conclusion.

"If this is true then when we die, we cease to exist, or maybe we don't maybe the energy it takes to power our consciousness is just reused elsewhere in a different form."

I don't know, you don't either, and this goes far beyond the scope of the discussion. Adding metaphysical baggage to the equation will do nothing but make it useless, and will do nothing to clarify anything.

"Okay, I can see how that's possible, but what about the claim that the universe started from nothing/non existence."

I didn't claim that, did you? I never claimed to know what caused the universe, I don't, and I don't even know for sure if time or space might exist outside of it in a different form. Do you?

"If absolute truth does not exist, why do we observe the universe as having a beginning?"

It is the MOST REASONABLE conclusion, based on all the evidence. While we are fairly certain it is true, it isn't an absolute, science does not deal in absolutes.

"Well, it could be possible that our conscious minds are creating what we observe as the universe having a beginning, but this is already becoming absurd."

Is it possible we are experiencing a collective delusion concerning the evidence of the big bang? Yes. Is there any evidence we are? No. Evidence is the sole and solitary determinant of the reasonable and unreasonable.

"So maybe it seems more likely that absolute truth does exist and that the universe does have a beginning."

More conflation. I already said that an OBJECTIVE reality exists, that does not imply an ABSOLUTE TRUTH exists, only that the universe actually exists.

"Well it can't be possible for the universe to come from non existence because if we believe absolute truth exists then this would mean it was absolutely true that the universe didn't exist then it became absolutely true that the universe did exist, but absolutes cannot contradict so this also seems impossible."

We actually don't know what is possible or impossible outside of our observable universe and physics paradigms. We aren't even certain that our "logical laws" apply to everything in our universe, or absolutely anything at all beyond it. What is true beyond this universe? We don't even know if such a question has any meaning outside our selective bubble of spacetime.

"The only other option is if an absolute conscious mind realized absolute truth and made it absolutely true that the universe began, thus creation!"

The only other option you can seem to think of, which is rather limited apparently, and no indication of what may actually be true by any means or stretch of any imagination.

"Since an absolute conscious mind always existed and will never cease to exist, there is no need for anything before it to have created it."

Goody, you discovered that if you posit something that does not have a beginning, you don't have to explain its origin! Except that such a thing isn't actually true, if I posited an eternal gremlin, I would STILL have to explain its existence is actually POSSIBLE. You haven't actually avoided anything, you just pretended to.

"This also means that non existence is impossible."

Heavy claim, based on extremely presumptive an biased logic, steeped in reason so fuzzy that they should use it to make plush toys.

"I know this is a lot to take in, but take it from someone who has thought about this a lot."

I think you need to rethink this.

"Don't be afraid to question your beliefs to the fullest."

I do, constantly, it actually keeps me a skeptic.

"Just remember the devil is real and he'll do anything to keep you blinded, you must fight. God has sacrificed himself for you because of this and that sacrifice is Jesus, you just have to believe!"

Read your last statement. Read this one. Re-read it again. Read this one again. One of these things is not like the other... One of these things just doesn't belong...

"God has allowed me to make it as easy as possible for people to believe and its my purpose to spread the word and hope that all will listen!"

I love how supposed free beings choosing to do something is always simplified to their almighty Kim Jong Un allowing them to do it, it is never theirs to take credit for, they only get to own it when it goes wrong and turns into fault. Ridiculous, it is sad really, an utter abortion of some of the actual logic you used until this point.