A skeptic sees regular laws of nature and says that's how things are, let find out how they work. A person attempting to prove god says that's how things are and there must be a reason things are the way they are, god is a good all purpose explanation, therefore god. Setting aside the question of whether regular laws require a god, the problem is that god himself would then require an explanation beyond that's how things are. Such an explanation is never forthcoming.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.