If you are a history buff then consider this;
Go through the history of that insignificant patch of desert in Arabia before the Quran was revealed to Mohammad Pbuh. Do you really believe that the entire credit goes to a single man, in a mere couple of decades, while surrounded by three mighty empires, was able to mobilize from scratch, a community that not only overcame the local opposition but overwhelmed the three empires almost simultaneously, furthermore, set into motion the growth of a community that number over 1.5 billion worldwide.
Equally astonishing is the fact that he still had the time to work on a document, that would be memorized "word for word" by millions, the work itself will have hundreds of checks and balances and astonishing trivia about the works itself. In addition contain hard coded facts pointing to the world we live in, with accuracy and prophetic uncanniness. All this from a desert nomad community of no known think tanks, no known centers of learning and no known military machine worth mentioning. What are the odds?
If you are a mathematician then consider this;
There are many avenues and all of them lead to either consistency or completeness. Completeness at the expense of consistency and the other way around has been demonstrated by Gödel, not only does it make sense mathematically, it fits in perfectly with the historical debate. Gödel is not alone with insight into the issue, Max Dehn before him and Alan Turing just after his work was proposed and many after them were able to demonstrate, in a number of disciplines, the problem of undecidability and that there is no consistent, effective formal system which proves for every question A in a given system that there is a certainty of a "yes" or a "no" answer.
The overriding consideration of imagining infinity or nothingness (zero) is in its usefulness and not in its proof of existence. Is it then logical to conclude that to ask for proof of God is a logical fallacy?
If you are logician then consider this;
First, try to unlearn everything you know about right and wrong, not easy, then try and build up a case for each simple idea like stealing or lying to be either wrong or right. One thing you will notice very early on is, that it is totally and I emphasis “totally” subjective from both an individual and a group’s perspective. The only logical way to introduce any solidity into the equation would be an external factor or constant, be it survival, natural laws, what ever that means or divine revelations. To sit back and enjoy the comfort of embedded notions of right and wrong and than come out swinging and claiming that these are the product of your intellect per se is nothing short of illusions of grandeur.
The need and choice of the constant quickly takes a life of its own like infinity or zero in mathematics (try reaching the Moon without them or make a wire transfer). Once logic takes over, the need for a catchall constant becomes indispensable. Given the limited time, nanoseconds on cosmological scale, at our disposal it becomes imminent. From there on the choice of God (As defined in natural language) as the constant is almost automatic if the objective is to arrive at even a semblance of a moral system, as we know it. The alternative is simply not acceptable.