I know this is a bit pedantic, but I only listed 6 titles. This suggests to me that you are not reading my posts very carefully. The books I suggested are first person accounts of lives spent encountering God. You would find, were you to read them, that the people who wrote them met God in all sorts of ways: though visions and revelations, through the scriptures, in the silence of prayer, in worship, in encounters with other people. God speaks to us in many different ways. 'This guy saw God move a mountain and had a conversation with him' is only one.
I agree that, in a shorthand way, I personalised science (that is, I talked as if science was a person rather than a collection of practices, which is a better description science is more than scientific method, indeed, much science doesn't use scientific method at all theoretical physics for example).
Science (or scientific method, if you like) is good at answering questions about what the world is like, but it is not good at answering second-order questions about the significance of what it finds out. The idea that it could do this was termed the 'naturalistic fallacy' by the philosopher GE Moore. This could be summarised as 'you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is''. To do this, you need other methods of inquiry -- philosophy, the arts and humanities, social sciences, even, dare I say it, theology.
I came to believe Jesus rose from the dead because I can't see that any other explanation makes sense of what came after. The other possibilities are that the disciples hid the body and then told lies (why would they dedicate their lives, living in poverty and danger, courting exclusion from their community and even death, for something they knew was a lie?), or that they saw a vision and mistook it for reality (but why did so many people have this vision, not all at once, but in singly or in small groups, without knowing that he had appeared to other people?). When all the other explanations have been discounted as impossible, what remains must be the truth -- however improbable it seems.
As the Nicene Creed says, 'I look for the resurrection of the dead': I hope for it.
Experiences of God don't come very often. They might be very fleeting: a moment of awareness of his presence, the knowledge that you are loved, a brief vision of light in a time of great darkness. You might have only one in an entire lifetime in a recent programme Sister Wendy Beckett said that she had had only one but that experience is life-changing.
I suspect that what you mean by 'real knowledge' is something like 'empirical evidence'. But there are so many things that you cannot have 'real knowledge' about. You cannot have real knowledge of numbers, or abstractions like beauty or justice, you cannot have real knowledge of love, you cannot have real knowledge of hope, and you cannot have real knowledge of God -- if that is all you mean by 'real knowlege'. That seems to me to be an unnecessarily restrictive account of what it might mean to have knowledge of something, one which surely prevents you from knowing anything about the deepest questions of human life.