D
One does not need to "see" things in order to gain evidence, and you ought to keep in mind that there is nothing irrational about belief in supernovas -- there is no counter-evidence. Skepticism is a very rational viewpoint in which we don't believe in things without good evidence. Not believing and disbelieving aren't necessarily the same thing -- you're arguing that this is "proof" of ghosts not existing, but rather it's an argument about why we shouldn't believe in ghosts without better evidence.
A good reason to doubt any one's religions claims is that all religions make similar claims and they all claim to offer the same "kind" of evidence -- it tends to be based on a presupposition of the truth of their respective holy texts, on faith, on vague prophecies, and on philosophical arguments that could prove any god if true (the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, etc.) with hope that a person swayed by these arguments would automatically assume that they must be arguments for your god. From an outside perspective, all religions look the same. You claim to see "proof He exists" and claim that "He speaks to [you]", and yet you believe you've found proof of your God because you never looked for proof of anyone else's God (or for the non-existence of any god), and people from every religion claim to speak to their gods. They all offer the same evidence that you do: personal conviction of the truth, anecdotal evidence, faith. When other religions can't persuade you of the truth of their beliefs with this evidence, can't you see why it's similarly worthless to atheists?
A good reason to doubt any one's religions claims is that all religions make similar claims and they all claim to offer the same "kind" of evidence -- it tends to be based on a presupposition of the truth of their respective holy texts, on faith, on vague prophecies, and on philosophical arguments that could prove any god if true (the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, etc.) with hope that a person swayed by these arguments would automatically assume that they must be arguments for your god. From an outside perspective, all religions look the same. You claim to see "proof He exists" and claim that "He speaks to [you]", and yet you believe you've found proof of your God because you never looked for proof of anyone else's God (or for the non-existence of any god), and people from every religion claim to speak to their gods. They all offer the same evidence that you do: personal conviction of the truth, anecdotal evidence, faith. When other religions can't persuade you of the truth of their beliefs with this evidence, can't you see why it's similarly worthless to atheists?
So why are you here exactly?