Your post hoc reasoning is laughable. The question is not what happened afterward, but what should have been called at the time of the play.
I agree with this. It is a logic flaw to use hindsight to support/argue against a 50/50 type of call.
However, it is also faulty to definitively call either decision absolutely correct...or absolutely wrong. The percentages were close enough that a subjective decision to go one way or another by the coach was very reasonable.
Was it more likely that this specific Saints defense against that Atl offense gives up a TD in the time remaining? (keep in mind, there was also a chance that Atlanta scores a TD and the Saints still win by putting together a game winning FG drive. You need to consider that.)
Or, is it more likely that the Saints convert on 4th down and 2?
It isn't clear cut. Anyone saying different is incorrect.
What is clear cut is that the timeout decisions (to use one when we had the ball on 4th down and to not use one after Atl's 2nd down and goal) were absolutely poor decisions and hurt the teams chances of winning the game.