Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Esquilax]

Modern Scientists all agree that the universe had a beginning and further that it is a closed system.  

Feels like you're going to need a citation for that, since I can bring up a video of Alan Guth, a cosmologist who contributed the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem regarding universal origins with some other scientists, stating that he does not know if the universe had a beginning, but suspects that it is eternal; evidently, your claim that all scientists agree that the universe had a beginning is falsified. In fact, I've not seen a single solitary scientist actually make that claim in the simplified way that you're making it.

While I understand what you are saying and fully agree that simply saying "God did it" is not a valid explanation as the HOW or WHAT question you also must remember that there are differing forms of explanation that are not contradictory, but both complimentary or that some things require both explanations to be fully understood. There are mechanical explanations sure (as in your description of a rainbow), but there are are also explanations from agency. Science can explain the how answers, but not the why. To answer a why question fully you also need an explanation from agency. If I present to you a pot of boiling water on a stove and then ask you the question "why is the water boiling?", science can give a detailed description of the heat causing the aggravation of the water molecules, etc, etc. But I tell you no, it's boiling because I want a cup of tea. These are not conflicting explanations, but both are satisfactory and answer the same question.

If that's the way you want to define the nature of "why?" questions, then you're going to have to justify the assertion you're making that the universe requires, or could even coherently pose, a "why?" question. If "why?" questions are questions regarding agency, then you're going to first need to establish that the universe required agency before the possibility of it having an answer to a "why?" even makes sense. You're putting the cart way before the horse.

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

Except that consciousness is a process undergone by specific arrangements of matter. It isn't made of matter itself. By your logic here, computer systems are just physical components, none of those components are programs, therefore computers can never have programs installed on them. It's ridiculous, not to mention a fallacy of composition, as has already been pointed out.

But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.

Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

Really? Because it's leading to an argument from ignorance, here: "I don't understand this, therefore non material consciousness." Are you even trying, anymore?