I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.
So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)
I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.
"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."
See. We're no better off than when we started. And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much. Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?
... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.