It might be. But I have never said it is 50/50. I have no idea of what the odds are.
What invisible beings are you referring to? The one's you blindly guess do not exist? Or something else?
Okay. So what. Are you saying the only things that exist are thing that can be detected (evidenced) by humans...the currently visible senior beings on planet Earth, a speck of dust circling a fairly nondescript star in a fairly nondescript galaxy among trillions of other galaxies in the part of the universe known to those humans?
Is that what you are saying, because that is what I can reasonably infer from what you are arguing...and anyone with a functioning brain can tell that is an absurdity.
Son...you ought to quit while you are only far behind.
I doubt you will. So I thank you for that.
Are you in any way familiar with MATHEMATICS? (That's the one with NUMBERS, not the letters)
In mathematics there are estimations which allow one to make solid decisions even when it isn't exactly 100% known perfectly. Take for instance something called an "infinite series" which, per the name, is infinite. It cannot be wholly solved. BUT many of these infinite series CONVERGE on a value.
Take Pi as another example. You can't possibly know pi to all its digits (it's infinite) so I guess you can never calculate the area of a circle. You can never calculate....well about 1/3 of any given equation in physics. You simply don't know anything about circles because you can't know pi perfectly
Look at CALCULUS (that's the class your smarter friends in high school took while you were over in shop algebra). There's a "Lim" function which provides a value for a function
as it APPROACHES some input value.
There are also countless shortcuts or estimators in math which serve perfectly well to come to SOLID DISCRETE SOLUTIONS even when all the data is less than 100% known.
Even in INFERENTIAL STATISTICS (google that so you'll understand) scientists allow products to go out on the market as effective treatments for, say, illnesses, after they have tested it and "rejected the null hypothesis" that the drug didn't have any effect. Again, the data is NEVER perfect.
ALL OF THIS IS DENIED TO YOU because you are some sort of zealot for perfected knowledge.
Like I said, let me know when you make it past the Hume module in your online philosophy-for-morons class and we can further discuss.