Attempting to prove a concept or idea with reason to a person who is currently unable (and especially unwilling) to perceive it’s validity can be quite emotionally taxing, since they do not have the same “knowing” (knowledge/gnosis) as you, nor the desire to open their perceptions wide enough to know it for themselves. They will remain stuck in the “appeal to ignorance” logical fallacy, since they are lacking the knowledge (perspective) necessary to begin to understand it; they reason, “since I cannot perceive of it, it must not exist at all”. They commit the sin of Samael, whose name means “god of the blind”, where he reasoned, “because I cannot see the ALL, I am all there is”; he was so blind that he did not even know that he did not know.
Their chief is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, “It is I who am God; there is none apart from me.” When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, “You are mistaken, Samael” – which is, “god of the blind.” His thoughts became blind. ~The Nag Hammadi [Gonstic] Library, Hyperstasis of the Archons
It is akin to having a blind person require that you prove to them that the color red is real, even though their perspective does not allow for them to have the color red proven to them. This is the “burden of proof” logical fallacy, where it’s not that you are required to prove the color red exists to them, but that the burden of proof is upon them to prove to you that it doesn’t exist. Even so, since they do not have the ability to perceive (know) for themselves, they will never be able to fully understand the color red, no matter how well you explain it to them, nor how logical you are in your presentation.
The same problem exists when you attempt to argue esoteric concepts that require very specific direct knowledge to exoteric individuals, for it is up to the listener to open up their perspective wide enough to view the knowledge for themselves, and only then will they be able to begin to comprehend your reasoning. Additionally, the burden of proof is not upon you to prove that esoteric realities exist, but the onus is on them to first open their awareness enough to be able to perceive them, and only then will you be able to converse together.
In such situations, it is unrealistic to think that they will be persuaded to perceive and understand your reasoning, so it is important to discern who, where, and when to have such conversations, as they can be energy wasters. It may however still be beneficial for you to delve into the argument, for the challenge that it provides is capable of upgrading your own understanding of the concepts involved. For this reason alone, going into a discussion with those who may never comprehend the points you are making can be quite beneficial to your own growth; as long as you are not attached to their ability to finally see your perception and understanding of it.
Most people do not even know that they do not know, for they say that they will only believe something is true after they see it–but they must first open their perceptions wide enough so that they can see it. Closed eyes are unable to see anything, but opened eyes are able to see; believing that we can have closed perceptions before we see the truth is the logical fallacy of “appeal to ignorance”. This type of fallacious reasoning fails “to appreciate that the limits of one’s understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone (~Wikipedia)”. The old adage “I’ll believe it when I see it” is usually opposed by “you’ll see it when you believe it”, but we say, “you’ll see it once you open your eyes, and then you’ll know it.” ~Nathan & Aline