Obviously there exists a list of the finite simple groups, but why should it be a nice list, one that you can write down? 

[Solomon's AMS article][1] goes some way toward a historical / technical explanation of how work on the proof proceeded.  But, though I would like someday to attain some appreciation of the mathematics used in the proof, I'm hoping that there is some plausibility argument out there to convince the non-expert (like me!) that a classification ought to be feasible at all. A few possible lines of thought come to mind:

 - Groups have very simple axioms. So perhaps they should be easy to classify. This seems like not a very convincing argument, but perhaps there is some way to make it more convincing.
 - Lie groups have a nice classification, and many tools are available for their study and that of their finite analogues. And in fact, it turns out that almost all finite simple nonabelian groups fall under this heading.  Is it somehow clear _a priori_ that these should be essentially all the examples? What sort of plausibility arguments might lead one to believe this?
 - If there are _not_ currently any good heuristic arguments to convince a non-expert that a classification _should_ be possible, then will this always be the case? Or will we someday understand things better...

There is probably a model-theoretic way to formalize this question. As a total guess, it might be something along the lines of "Do the finite simple groups have a finitely axiomatizable first-order theory?", except probably "finitely axiomatizable first-order theory" doesn't really capture the idea of a classification. If someone could point me towards how to formalize the idea of "classifiable", or "feasibly classifiable", I'd appreciate it.

  [1]: http://www.ams.org/notices/199502/solomon.pdf