Yes, experience is not self-interpreting. Therefore I said that the absolute truth is neither based in faith nor experience. That is, what we call enlightenment is not an experience. It's enough to look at all the people who mistake their various trance-like mental states for enlightenment and the wildly differing interpretations they have. So again, yes, experience reveals nothing and I never said it is revelatory. I really don't know where you got I think it is, because that is my main disagreement with all spiritual and religious folks.

Frankly, I'm not concerned with god. It's just a word. The god you wage war against is god of faith, experience, and intellectual conjecture. Such entity does not exist beyond human mind and is of no interest to me. What interests me, on the other hand, is the absolute reality which is the same for everyone and can be called God (but has many other different names, including a name such as "The Name").

With that being said -- the hypothesis is that the absolute nature of reality is singular infinite omnipresent existence which is no other than omniscient uniform consciousness. If it's not true you should be able to conjure absolute non-existence while still allowing singularity, big bang, and subsequently universe arising from it. Furthermore, you should be able to deny conscious experience while still remain in existence.

That is on first sight rather easy, but it does not square with the fact that you can experimentally verify that consciousness is persistent even in mental down states of brain. That experiment also reveals that consciousness is uniform and present "in" at least all living organisms. To be honest it does not say anything about whether consciousness is fundamental or just inevitable emergent possibility, but at that point it became a moot point for me. And of course, you can verify these things only for yourself because consciousness is directly unobservable as it is the observer.