Let us look at your two arguments.
The first claims that "objectivity" is a "barometer of truth". THen it asserts that there are things that science can't deal with. Then it asserts that "Reality is the Creator". However it also assumes a Creator/Created dichotomy which is impossible if "Reality is the Creator" - the created are a part of reality. Thus objectively speaking, this argument is nonsensical. It doesn't even use the "barometer of truth" it is supposedly applying.
The second is an argument from personal incredulity. Put simply it asserts that since you don't understand how consciousness works, it must have been "granted" by a source that is itself reasoning. But this is simply jumping to conclusions. Even worse the argument uses emotional attacks as an excuse for ignoring what we do know about consciousness. And that is hardly objective or rational.
Neither of these arguments constitutes a rational reason for believing in a God. They seem more like desperate rationalisations.
™ Version 4.2