Maybe you should put forward an affirmative argument of non-existence or continuity with the past, etc. Otherwise, you are just asserting formless skepticism -- with no evidence.
Hmm; I think of it more as the null hypothesis - it is the alternative/proposed hypothesis that would need evidence in my mind. I.e. my daily necessary-for-sanity assumption is that 10 million gazillion things are pretty much the same today as yesterday; if a headline/claim is "This thing has changed/Occurred!", that is what needs evidence in order for claim to be relevant/substantiated/interesting.
Or just google it.
Skepticism is appropriate when there's no evidence, in general. No opinion on this matter.