“I don’t know” is the most dignified answer in response to questions regarding that which we don’t know. Questions such as, “how was the world created”, “is there an afterlife” and so on.
So too is the answer “probably not” sufficiently dignified in response to questions regarding the highly improbable. Questions such as “is there a man with flying reindeer at the north pole” and “did the force responsible for the universe also write a book allocating a piece of land, and suspend physics to split a sea, for a particular group of humans”.
If you believe God designed this world to be a difficult precursor to a messianic time devoid of struggle, you’re unable to conceive of, and therein hold humanity back from, creating for each other circumstances far better than those we have thus far.
Children’s laughter and sunsets being evidence of God’s goodness, yet horrors, Him working in mysterious ways, is like horrors being evidence of His evil, and sunsets, evil but in a mysterious way.
If you contend that “the story of Pinocchio is true” because you think the story expresses some abstract concept that is true, your misrepresenting yourself.
If you consider truth to be subjective, how then does it differ from opinion, and what term would you use to express objective truth?
Words are arbitrary sounds to which we collectively assign specific meanings to facilitate communication. If two words adequately express a distinction between two concepts, by conflating their meanings you negate the purpose of language.
I would not ask the time from someone who believes unicorn, santa or superman are real.
As I am confident the likes of ghosts, reincarnation and horoscopes are nonsense, I am confident evolution is real and that man made climate change is a problem, if for no other reason than that the only people denying these claims, just so happen to be the same people who believe in things like talking snakes and that a new set of physical laws were devised just to aid a group of fleeing slaves cross a river.