It is not possible to disprove the existence of anything which cannot be shown to be a contradiction with some feature that is inextricably bound or native to that which is existence (not the universe mind you, but reality itself). That said it is not possible to prove the existence of anything which exists outside the bounds of our experiential reality. If we have no experience of it, then we have no evidence of it.
Logical arguments for the existence of "God," if they actually do anything of the sort, evidence the "existence" of Perfection, but since Perfection is outside the bounds of Reality itself it is impossible to relate meaningfully to the conclusion since it is bound up inextricably in indeterminancy.
Consciousness, nor anything else I am currently aware of within the bounds of reality, will not evidence (let alone prove) the existence of a personal deity. An impersonal deity is plausible, but then it begs the question of "how is this not Perfection?" I.E. what differentiates the two? If it is real (as in some native inhabitant of reality, that is bound by the laws of the natural cosmos), then it cannot be a god nor can it be a personal "God." As soon as something is real, then it becomes an ET. It might be super smart, super powerful, and super cool, but it is still "just" an ET. Worship of said being is not meaningful. The ET might get a kick out of it or just might let "lesser" species do so because they don't know better, but appeasing this being does not make the sun rise in the morning (Caveat: still not a good idea to whiz off something with cosmic powers though...)
MTF