You and others are asking for a demonstration that consciousness is fundamental (rather than matter).
I assume that the demonstration you are asking for is in the physical world (the world of matter).
Yes, that's pretty much what we're asking for, because if consciousness is fundamental, then someone should be able to make changes to the physical world with their consciousness. This is even more important because of the fact that we can apparently make changes to a person's consciousness using physical matter (surgery, drugs, even hitting someone over the head, can all cause altered states of consciousness, or the outright destruction of it).
As it stands, you are engaging in special pleading - you are expecting us to just ignore the fact that you can't provide any such demonstration without a good reason. Note that sophistry like you engage in below is never a good reason to justify special pleading.
But if consciousness is primary and the physical world emerges within consciousness then you are effectively asking that a person effectively in a 'dream' (with you) physically verify the primacy of consciousness.
So why can't you? I mean, according to you, when a person is in a dream, their consciousness creates matter in order to create their environment. Yet nobody has ever been able to create matter using their consciousness in the real world. If consciousness is primary, then it should at least be possible to do this. So why can't you produce any evidence for it?
So what evidence could possibly convince you ? It would need to be evidence collected within a dream (so to speak).
Why do you have to ask what evidence would be convincing? If the physical world is a dream, then a person's consciousness should be able to manipulate it. It isn't a matter of whether it would be convincing, it's a matter of whether it's possible to even do. So why not just do various things with your consciousness and see what would actually convince people? As it stands, all you're doing is convincing us that you know there isn't any way to provide any such evidence and are trying to use special pleading to excuse your belief from the need to present evidence.
You say that the difference between dreaming and waking is obvious but that is only by defining dreaming and waking in a certain strict way. To see this point more clearly we could define them the other way around ie dreaming is when we are constrained by apparent laws and waking is when we no longer have those constraints (ie a less limited state). We have simply grown accustomed to describing it the other way around from that. It is simply an assumption that what we call waking is a more 'real' state than what we call dreaming.
This is pretty much just sophistry. It's nothing but a way to try to argue that even though you can't present evidence or anything to support your belief, that it deserves to be taken seriously anyway. And the mere fact that you have to play with definitions to try to make your point is a dead giveaway that you have nothing else to support it at all. You say that it's just an assumption that waking is a more 'real' state than dreaming, but this just demonstrates your misunderstanding of the whole subject. Waking and dreaming are both equally real states of consciousness; we can tell when someone is awake as opposed to dreaming by the electrical signals their brain gives off. In other words, it's pretty well confirmed that a dreaming mind is contained within the physical universe, because it is still linked to one's physical body.
I think you mentioned Ockham's Razor a couple of times. While Ockham's Razor is only meant to be a guide, I think it works in favour of the consciousness model which has at least 2 fewer assumptions rather than the matter model -
1. We know that we are conscious but we don't know that matter is not dreamt/imagined.
2. We know that consciousness can produce an environment with apparent matter - because it happens to us all when we dream. But we don't know that matter can produce consciousness.
Except that you are excluding additional assumptions that you must make in order to hold your "consciousness is primary" belief. Worse, you apparently don't even realize that you're doing so. First, you assume that we are actually conscious, rather than it being a cognitive illusion. Second, you assume that consciousness can create something akin to matter. Third, you assume that there is no way to tell the difference between actual matter and dream matter. Fourth, you assume that there must be something that prevents our individual consciousnesses from affecting the physical universe while we're awake (which begs the question of what that might be). Fifth, you assume that dreams are somehow 'outside' the entire physical universe.
So the matter model requires two extra assumptions! which are - 1. What we call waking is not a dream and 2. Consciousness can arise from matter.
As opposed to your consciousness model, which requires a number of additional assumptions; I'm sure there are more than just the five I noted. I'd say Occam's razor still falls on the side of the "matter model", as you put it.
So here we have a fundamental problem for atheism - If the primacy of consciousness model is no less valid than the matter model (and since the consciousness model requires fewer assumptions) then atheism has no grounds for trying to use the matter based model to attempt to contradict an alternative and simpler model (eg belief in God as the source/origin/essence of consciousness).
Except, first, your "consciousness model" requires additional assumptions, and second, you can provide no evidence whatsoever for it. That makes it a much less valid and reliable model. But even if it were equally valid, it would still require evidence to support it. Therefore, your argument here is nothing more than special pleading. It doesn't matter how valid a model seems; what matters is whether it has evidence to support it. If there is no evidence, then there is no reason to consider it until you provide evidence, and furthermore, there is no reason to consider any spurious attempts by you to falsely level the playing field so you can pretend that other models that have evidence to support them are no more valid than your evidence-less, assumption-filled model.
Certainly atheists are free to adopt the extra assumptions of the matter model but their assumed model provides no grounds whatsoever for attacking an alternative and simpler model.
Given that your argument has proven to be egregiously flawed, there is no reason to give your opinion that other people cannot criticize your belief for its lack of evidence any special consideration. You are more than welcome to hold whatever beliefs you want, but you don't have any business trying to excuse those beliefs from criticism by using sophistry, special pleading, and bad reasoning.