David_1,
Question 1.) I don't believe that I have all the answers. So, I guess the answer is 0?
Question 2.) I do think that it is egotistical and arrogant to assume that you (or me), a lone individual in the universe, have ultimate knowledge. However, I think faith is the ultimate assumption in this sense because it goes much farther than merely not believing in something for which they have no evidence. Faith asserts itself to have, as you say, ultimate knowledge. This isn't limited to Christianity, either. Muslims claim to have ultimate knowledge through the Quran, Hindus through the Vedas, etc. As far as being moved by mystery, I am constantly moved by mystery. Mystery is why I do not believe in the existence of any deities. As far as I can tell, there are no deities. So, to me, I call it a mystery and leave it at that instead of making the bold assertion that I know what's going on.
Question 3.) I'm not sure how to answer this. I think Karl Popper ended the idea that one can "prove" anything with falsificationism. To prove something would, as you say, require ultimate knowledge. Therefore, all science can do is falsify an idea. In the scientific sense, the last idea left standing must be the truth. IF evidence came to light falsifying the last standing idea, then theorists would have to go to work coming up with another falsifiable idea that can be tested to generate reproducible evidence. Nothing in science is, as you say, solid. The minute new, reproducible evidence comes to light, prevailing scientific theory must change.