> I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless.
I'm confident that no good explanations have been offered for certain claims, and my epistemology is that the truth value of claims depends on having good explanations for those claims. Someone might have a different epistemology which admits claims of the form "X is true despite there being no good explanation of X being true," but note that such an epistemology effectively allows for all claims being true (the existence of unicorns, the claim that the Universe's existence began 1 millisecond ago and will end in the next 1 millisecond, etc.).
I'm confident that no good explanations have been offered for certain claims, and my epistemology is that the truth value of claims depends on having good explanations for those claims. Someone might have a different epistemology which admits claims of the form "X is true despite there being no good explanation of X being true," but note that such an epistemology effectively allows for all claims being true (the existence of unicorns, the claim that the Universe's existence began 1 millisecond ago and will end in the next 1 millisecond, etc.).