The proof will NEVER be something that can make a doubter believe.
Then it's not proof, is it?
What you're describing is totally redundant. What use is so-called "evidence" that only convinces the already-convinced? I mean, why even bother? If they're already convinced, why would you need to show them
anything?
The people who doubt are the
only ones who need proof. Who have any use for it. People who already believe - what need have they for proof? It would just be redundant.
How could there be a choice if there was ironclad proof that could be shown to the world.
What planet do you live on where every human being determines what to believe based on what the evidence supports? I wish I lived on it. Here on Earth, people use all manner of strategies to determine what to believe, and "following the evidence" is the one that relatively few engage in. (Most people use the strategy "what does everybody else around me believe?" which is why there's Republicans.)
™ Version 4.2