Existence is relative, not absolute. The problem with 'common sense' is that it assumes language to be representational of 'extant permanent objects', which is fine for daily transactions, just like a geocentic model is still useful for gardeners. However, 'common sense' is at odds with scientific paradigms with not only usurp normal 'logic', question 'causality', speak of sub atomic particles 'popping in and out of existence', and eliminate 'time' as fundamental parameter . 'Common sense' would not have given us computers or satnavs, or led to the discovery of 'black holes'.
I refer you back to the OP point about the Einstein Bohr debate. Einstein took a basic step,away from 'common sense' in his deconstruction of lay views of 'time', but as a 'realist' he could only go so far, and refused to accept quantum theory 'illogical' notions like 'nonlocality' which he called 'spooky'. It turns out he was emprically 'wrong'.
Finally, I ask you what 'common sense' would make of Brian Cox's sub-title for his book on 'Quantum Physics'....'Whatever CAN happen, DOES happen !'