Point 1: Lack of Proof
A lack of proof is often cited as a reason for why a God cannot exist, citing that the burden of proof is required for acceptance of a God. The religious argument is obviously that religion is based on belief, and not proof. Many atheists scoff at this idea, saying that belief is not reflective of scientific proof, and therefore is unfounded. However, there are many everyday things that we believe in without empirical evidence. For example, separation of gender identity from sex identity is based entirely on the belief that you can reject the scientific facts that are presented, based on a belief that has no physical evidence. A divine perspective on gender identity would argue that the person, the conscious, the spirit of an individual that is gender queer is simply different from the mere scientific facts.
Another example would be the human conscious. Everyone (I assume, there is no empirical proof) knows what it feels like to be conscious. However, the physical properties of the brain do not explain consciousness, the best we can do is establish a correlational link between the two. There is no way to physically measure consciousness, yet, it is widely accepted to be true.
Point 2: Science and Religion are not exclusive
Science is an inherently adaptive field based entirely around trying to explain the world of which we are a part. However, science is not a perfect thing. It is curious and data driven yes, but is often wrong.
Take the Bohr model, or Lamarckism, or Miasma Theory. Each of these scientific models explained the world well with the information made available, yet, were eventually proven wrong.
How did we find out that these theories were wrong? By disproving them. This is to point out that science is not based around stating explicit truths, but instead seeks to make highly likely models based on what we can *disprove*. The Bohr model was rejected because it couldn't explain atomic emissions, and we made our next best guess.
It is impossible to disprove a God, as it could not be tested, and therefore the existence of one is plausible.
Point 3: The Existence of a God does not require a reason
Many will cite a lack of a reason for a God as evidence against one. "What does insertion of a God explain?" The issue here is many facts exist without reason, whether or not we can measure its presence. For example, we did not always know mathematical principles, despite their inherit existence. If a God exists, then it would be a mere fact. Just like the fact that 1+1=2. There doesn't have to be a reason, it just is there.
Wrap Up:
To be fair, I am not seeking to prove a God. That kinda goes against the whole idea of one. However, I think many people quickly write off the mere possibility that a God can exist based entirely on their own availability heuristics. In a less formal fashion, I think that a big reason I personally believe in a God is because I do think humans are very special. We can think, we can create, we can act irrationally. Also, I believe in fate, that everything happens for a reason. A God and a fate seem pretty interconnected, no? Either way, IDK this is just some insight from someone who won't just go "hurr durr da Bible says God made all da animalzzz." I'm not saying you have to drop to your knees and pray, but if you can accept a science that is wrong at times; if you can accept math without reason, why does a religion have to be 100% infallible and understood?
Ok now go wild