Misguided as the above OP is, the question is interesting. Modern EVFs are getting better. What holds them back is resolution in comparison to OVFs is contrast, update speed, lag, and the constant necessity to switch on and off. In my words, the EVF introduces layers of psychotic breaks between the image and the photographer, from which all but the most kludgy optical solutions are free.
The Sony a7r's EVF is large, bright, and contrasty. Like all EVFs, however, it is prone to lag, to high amounts of noise, not to mention pixelation when juxtaposed to even a cheap OVF. The latter makes no adjustments for your eyes while the former attempts to mimic the eye by normalising the output between dark and light scenes. Thus your eye must adjust to not only ambient light changes, but also to EVF normalisation.
Those among other reasons are why I prefer to use the a7r for the steady and slow rhythm of still life and engagement photography, two genres to which the EVF is suited. In fact, the a7r is a far better still life camera than is my D800. Via the use of adapters, it will completely replace the D800 for the smattering of fair-weather landscape photography I do.
It is a fine photo-recording machine. However, I am quite firm in my opinion that it is neither ergonomically nor haptically a well designed camera. Sony is the harbinger of things to come, not the Messiah.
Perhaps to the fast-travelling internet it is. Here, the world is riddled with choice-funnelling, anchor-less arguments, and provocative lead-in statements.
In the logical fallacy-loving internet, yes, the EVF may well be accepted by OVF loyalists. Here in the real world, it is extremely useful for certain types of photography. But then, so is the OVF. And neither can replace the other.