Respecfully, there IS evidence of the first temple, or King Solomon's Temple. New discoveries in Iraq referencing King Nebuchanezzar, and the ancient Egyptian accounts of Ramses II who was pharaoh at the time of King Solomon record the destruction of the temple and carrying off it's artifacts.
So if Israel's enemies record they destroyed a temple, then theremust have been one. Unless, they were just "gloating" over nothing and they weren't really as powerful as their ancient hieroglyphs portray.
What about the archaeological discovery of King Solomon's palace which fits ,almost to the letter, the description given in the Bible of the three rows of stone followed by a cedar timber construction and the artifacts found there? The reason we didn't hear more about it, because most archaeologists have mis-dated the site.
Then their is the recent discovery of the dark grey, sandstone tablet is about the size of a legal pad. It was found recently near the ancient temple mount. It bears a 15-line first-person account, in ancient Phoenician script, which closely resembles descriptions in the Bible's Second Book of Kings, chapter 12, and refers to King Jehoash, who ruled Judea 2,800 years ago.
"the king tells priests to take 'holy money ... to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labour to carry out the duty with faith.' If the work is completed well, 'the Lord will protect his people with blessing,' reads the last sentence of the inscription."
Then, of course, there are the accounts in the Dead Sea Scrolls of the temple, it's construction, etc.
Shall I go on?