For some reason many physicists in the past and present such as Einstein and Hawking used the term God when they wanted to describe something essential and fundamental such as the laws of physics or the Big Bang theory. For most people this was an indication of their religiosity. However, anybody who knows the context of those words can tell that truth is different. Here is an article explaining this issue.
My personal point of view is that science does not require God by definition and not because science can prove that God does not exist. Defining science as the rational understanding of nature based on fundamental laws (and axioms), the acknowledgement of the existence of God would contradict this premise. Using God to explain something in science would be equivalent to admit an irrational element in the theory. In other words, admitting something that is not based on fundamental laws or axioms.
However, I think there is still the inconsistent possibility to put God outside science as the something beyond the laws of physics and axioms. Some would place God as the creator of the laws of physics and axioms. I do not see any consistent and rational way to put God as the explanation of absolutely anything. Having said that, I do not consider myself as completely consistent and rational being and I do not think anybody was, is or will ever be, so, here it lies a window for the endless debate for the existence of God.
Will we ever find a rational and consistent explanation for our consciousness and existence? Something tells me that the most likely answer is NOT.