I will give you a 50/50 bet. You can write down a number 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 and then chose if it will be that number or will be another number. AKA pick 2 and say it will be 2 or will not be 2.
Baring any evidence the first choice is random, but the second is that number or is not that number should not be random.
Logically faith is the same thing. It's picking a very specific result and saying baring any evidence I will pick a small set of outcomes and say this more likely true instead of not true.
Now, having evidence changes things. If you can show the dice is biased for 4, then picking not 6 is a better choice than not 4.
PS: Now if you believe picking is that number is a better option in my game, then I would be happy to play this game with you.
People are not robots they can accept ideas in conflict to both be true. That does not mean faith has no cost.
EX: So as not to offend anyone. If you believe that god's true name is 'Zual' and that she wants you to do a handstand on your 20th birthday. And you agree there is no evidence that this is the case, well without evidence the default assumption is for a less complex world without that requirement.
PS: No, that chain of logic does not disprove the idea. But it does mean picking 'Zual' over 'Zuam' or 'Zuak' ... without evidence is less likely to be true than false.