You were a Christian and yet you say there is ZERO evidence for Christianity??? That doesn't quite add up. Something tells me that you have emotional issues with Christianity rather than evidential, but even if you don't, saying that there is no evidence at all for Christianity is evidence that you are tangled up in a web of denial.
One of the strongest objections against Christianity is the fact that it makes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, which is often sneered at by atheists because it is "unscientific" and bizarre. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof we are told and yet when this is given people like you use the wiggle room you have to make the claim that it doesn't even count as evidence!
Calypsis4 submitted a video that gives clear evidence and extraordinary proof that the claims of Chistianity have in fact been verified, and guess what, only yesterday in the Swedish press (which in itself is almost a miracle) the following video was published:
So if this is not evidence that the claims of Christianity then please explain why it is not. Simply saying the it might have a naturalisic cause does not do that. I could just as easily turn around and say that there isn't evidence of ANYTHING AT ALL using that gigantic loophole!
I was a Christian because, like many, I accepted and believed what I was taught. It was blind faith, and nothing more. That changed when I began to examine things on my own. So, yes, it is a matter of evidence.
Now, as to your "proof," I am beginning to feel neither you nor Calypsis truly understand what that term means. All you have is faulty syllogism.
Premise 1: A man was clinically dead and was revived.
Premise 2: Christianity teaches that God can resurrect people from the dead.
Conclusion: God resurrected that man.
The problem here is that you see no issue with your premises leading to that conclusion. It seems self-evident to you when, in fact, it is not. I have seen elsewhere on this forum where Christians get rather annoyed by the evolutionist argument that, when presented with an event for which there is no hard and fast data, people instantly assume "evolution did it." Yet, you are doing the same. Simply because your religion teaches that resurrections can occur via your god does not mean that, and that alone, is proof that the people in question WERE resurrected by your god.
Proof requires more than "it could have occurred this way." I doubt you would accept an Atheist or evolutionist using that line of thinking, so it seems tremendously hypocritical of you to use the same argument yourself. When one does not have hard data and evidence to answer a question, it is intellectually dishonest to run straight to "my god did it."
You have provided some interesting case studies that are worth looking at, for sure. Personally, I am fascinated by them. However, it will take a lot more than a bunch of Christians assuming and claiming their god did it for me to count those videos as anything more than a starting point for further research. But, just remember, you won't accept "it could have natural causes" as an argument and I won't accept "it could be the Christian god" as an argument either. There is not enough data out there on these situations to truly say what did or did not happen. All we have right now is a situation which raises a bunch of questions - questions, it should be understood, for which there are not hard answers just yet.