In Christianity, blind faith is good faith

[Esquilax]

Incorrect.

There is every reason to believe that the authors of the gospels really WERE Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, two of them were apostles of Jesus while the other two had access to the apostles.

That's not what the scholarly consensus is, on this matter, even among christian historians. Actually, we know for a fact that the names associated with the gospels weren't present in the initial works- none of them ever identify themselves within the text, or claimed to be who you're claiming they are- and that those autographs were, in fact, added in the second century by the early church. We also know that the idea that those autographs correspond to the actual biblical figures was added later still, by bishops like Papias.

You don't have any evidence or reason to think that the biblical authors were their textual namesakes, beyond the say-so of people that similarly didn't have any evidence, but since you didn't bother presenting any evidence for your claim anyway, beyond asserting that you have it, I guess I don't have to seriously interact with it, now do I? Come back when you've got that evidence that the entire body of biblical scholars and historians don't have, though!

Second, they were not written "decades" after the fact...unless 2-3 "decades" is sufficient to be a problem for you.

First of all, 2-3 decades is multiple decades, hence my usage of the plural was entirely justified, and not worthy of the scare quotes you put around it. Secondly, when the average age during the time period topped out at like 35, you betcha two or three decades is a problem for the texts in question.

However, the oral tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 probably dates to within 5-10 years of the resurrection, and Paul got that early creed from the apostles personally as he points out in Galatians.

So people made a claim, and then claimed it to other people that believed it... big ol' game of chinese whispers... well, good thing those never mutate.

Now, about the circumstantial evidence. If I look out the window, and see rain falling, that is direct evidence. If, instead, I see people coming into the courtroom closing their wet umbrellas, that is circumstantial evidence that it is raining outside. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus; if you want to dismiss Luke and Mark because they are simply recording (accurately) what they were told by other eyewitnesses, fine. But the evidence is stronger than you suggest.

Again, you don't have any evidence that the authors- which the consensus of your scholars say are anonymous- are who you're claiming they are, so unless you can provide anything more solid than the bare assertion, I'm going to stick with the conclusions of people who are actually trained to know. But there's also this: what you're saying isn't at all like your hypothetical here. What's actually happening is that somebody has slipped a note under your door, claiming that it's raining outside, and some other rando tells you that the note writer is an eye witness to the rain. Meanwhile, you cannot hear the rain, or see the rain through the windows; all the direct evidence does not support the conclusion that it's raining, yet you'll accept that it is raining because a note said it is, and someone else said the note was written by an eyewitness.

Some would say that God has provided evidence of His existence.

Some would be wrong.
 

Not exactly. I'm making the claim that a historically reliable book records the testimony of individuals who saw the miracles.

So, the question will hinge on whether the authors of the NT were telling the truth.

Well, since you can't establish who the authors of the NT even were, despite your baseless protestations to the contrary, you have rather a hard job on your hands just to begin with. Not to mention all the areas where the new testament's account of events is directly contradicted by what we know about history to begin with...