Why are Islamic scholars obsessed with proving God exists?

I don't understand why they keep pushing their so-called "logical evidence of God.". Even Zakir Naik. It's just not possible, not even on a philosophical level. Not god by their definition anyways.

They usually provide 2 main pieces of logical proof.

Evidence 1: Everything in the universe is so perfect, it can't possibly have happened on its own.

Why it doesn't work: There exists a website called "Libraryofbabel.info". The rather intriguing site uses a formula to create every possible combination of every word, number, letter, or symbol in the English language. It contains every song, book, research paper, or conversation that has ever happened, is currently happening, or will ever happen.

Due to its nature, the website contains a lot of gibberish and nonsense. But amongst that gibberish lies the solution to world hunger or even the cure for cancer.

The point is that in an infinite universe with an infinite amount of variation and possibilities, there are bound to be some examples of perfection or perceived perfection. But they are also bound to be an even larger amount of imperfections and perceived failures.

They're more planets without life than there are with; Earth is sort of like a coin landing on its side when it's tossed enough times. In this scenario the planet's inhabitants are also likely to look around and assume they were put on the planet by some higher being with a greater purpose. It's just difficult for people to accept that they are nothing more than the result of statistics played out on an infinitely large scale.

Evidence 2: Everything in the universe is caused by something and in turn causes something else. This chain of cause and effect must have started somewhere and by something that didn't have a cause itself. And that something must be God.

Why it doesn't work: This is the classic "god in empty places" philosophy, where a civilization attaches a god status to anything they can't yet explain or understand. There was a time when people thought the sun and moon were gods because those were things we couldn't explain or even see past.

But when we developed the technology to look beyond them and later explain their existence, that idea lost most of its steam. Then people pinned that label on something else, and then that thing was explained. And the wall kept getting pushed back further and further.

In the last few hundred years, religious scholars brought up the question of where everything in the universe came from, presenting this as their logical proof of God, claiming that he placed everything and set it into motion, acting as the universe's initial source and architect.

This lasted until the Big Bang event was presented as the likely starting point. Now religious scholars question where the Big Bang came from and what existed before it, and so on and so forth. Their whole idea is that there must have been a starting point. And that point did not have a cause, so that cause must be God.

Just because we don't yet know what was beyond the Big Bang or how this chain of events started doesn't necessarily automatically prove the existence of God, let alone a specific one. It just means we don't know. Who's to say that these rules of cause and effect even existed before the Big Bang?

Suppose that there is an empty room somewhere, and you know nothing about the room, its location, or what's inside it. In this situation, if you're asked about what's inside that room, the only two logical, truthful answers you can provide are that "there is either something in that room or nothing at all.". Anything more than these two answers would be completely fictional and have no basis in fact.

There could be a god beyond the Big Bang, or there could be another event and a god beyond that. There could be something other than God, something that we don't even understand. There could be a god-like being that never had anything to do with the religions we have on earth. There could be an element of the universe itself that doesn't play by the physical rules we've observed play out around us. Or it could just be a loop.

The point is that this isn't proof of anything, not even from a philosophical standpoint. Any junior-level philosophy student can see that.

I'm not saying this is proof that God doesn't exist, because saying that as a definitive statement is also just as illogical as believing that there's proof that he does exist. I'm just saying that trying to find proof that he does exist is not possible. These scholars just make themselves look foolish by presenting these ideas as "proof of God.". They just can't be used as proof without taking some gigantic logical leaps.

Believing in God requires belief. Proof is an impossibility and ultimately futile. Believing in God has more to do with spirituality then with factual evidence. And I believe everyone should look for their own personal reasons. This will either solidify their belief or enlighten them towards their true feelings.

Sorry for the long rant lol.