THE WHITE CROW ON NORTH POLE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

I'm about to tell you the most significant and life changing reality of this universe which you have never been told. Until now. 

The universe is actually run by a white crow which sits atop a small snow mound at the North Pole.  Well-camouflaged in its white surroundings, it's impossible to observe and track. However, I had the privilege of talking to it and he gave me a lengthy code of conduct and rules of life by which all mankind should run their daily lives, down to the minutest details.  

This God crow has made me your only conduit to this supreme being and anyone who does not follow my commands in this respect will be damned to live naked in a frozen world, shivering and tormented, but never dead.  Till eternity. 

You might laugh and scoff, but if you don't believe me, I challenge to prove that there is no such crow on North Pole.  You might come up with persuasive arguments, but you will never be able to "prove" that such crow doesn't exist. 

What leads me to the diatribe above? 

For the umpteenth time, I got a retort in the form of an email from an old friend, asking me to disprove the existence of God if I can. And by inference he means that since I can't disprove it, God probably exists. 

One of the fundamental pillars of logic is that you can't prove a negative. So anyone can make any ludicrous claim about reality of life and universe, and leave the burden on others to disprove. And if hey can't disprove, then claim the validity of their belief, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. 

So I wrote to my friend what I always write to others, "Onus of disproving existence of God is not on those denying its existence, but the onus of proving its existence is on those claiming it."  

I can only wish more people would understand this basic concept.  Or am I wrong and missing something?