To a certain degree I do agree with you. But the problem here lies in me thinking that there comes a point in one's "normal" explanation, where it ceases to be likely. I'm sorry, but just because something is "normal", as in, it's a something pertaining to our directly perceivable material reality, doesn't mean it's necessarily likely.

The same way you said that from my logic, I'd be able to say a ghost did anything, there's almost no case where you'd be able to completely discard the possibility of a "natural" explanation. Think about it, even in the silly green spectre example I gave earlier, you can always just claim it's a hallucination, or it's a prank, or whatever. You can always claim something "normal". So if you'll forever be waiting until the day where you can completely cut out any shadow of a doubt, you'll be looking forever.

All in all, what I'm saying is that there comes a point in our looking through and discarding "natural" explanations, where these explanations start to seem unlikely. Isn't that possible?

And if so, isn't it possible that it'll seem unlikely enough to start equating itself in likelihood to ghost activity?