"proof" shown is insufficient.
What you fail to understand is that this applies only to you.
It's not sufficient for you.
There is no need to impose your convictions upon others.
However if you're looking for a good fight on personal tastes, you should head over to the nearest church, find a preacher and tell him that proof of the existence of God is insufficient.
Maybe you're a science man? Then go to the biggest pharmaceutical company you can find, find their best drug and tell them that proof that their drug works is insufficient because their clinical trial was based on 10,000 people and not the entire world.
And I've never even attempted to do so.
(Are you sure you reply the right person?)
I'm not the one who brought a final proof in support of their ideas.
When someone does, IMHO implicitly accepts the risk that it should be discussed and / or refuted, and then can turn against their thesis.
For this reason it would be a good thing at least see if it is actually a good proof or not, acceptable even beyond their own convictions.
So the validity of a proof is no longer just a personal opinion, but something that must withstand the light of reason.
Regarding a personal struggle on the basis of beliefs as well, no thanks are not very interested there are already too many in the world unfortunately.
I know, the real fanatics do not need proof, and the proof for the skeptics are never enough, but there are other categories of people,
reasonable people who openly assess the facts one by one.
When you are in a group of reasonable people and you manage to keep an open mind sometimes certain exchanges of ideas
can be very interesting and lead to a common growth.
It is this hope that we continue to communicate, or not?
So my hope that we can go beyond being radically skeptical or fanatics, and with an open mind and respectful of others,
be communicative and rational, able to grow, to be better than that.
