@Thucydide: you said:

"orathaic:
I cannot conclusively agree that there is time or that the Universe exists or that you exist, how long I have existed and how long I may yet exist, if there is a meaningful sense of time beyond illusion at all.

That's the point. You can't prove those things. "

I dislike the the standad proof of the existance of "I" - I think therefore i am.
assume: I think - it is possible to doubt that I think, in which case you are doubting, which admits to you thinking, so it seems very strong - however It presumes I to begin with.

"I think" is only a valid statement for well-defined values of "I" and "think" - and if we have already a well-defined "I", which we are willing to state exists then what is the point in trying to prove it?

I do not know i exist, however I have confidence in my belief that I exist.

From there I can go to confidence that other people exist (and that they are like me - i base this asumption on the evidence of my senses which i have some confidence in)

Lastly I have confidence that there is a future and past (time) and up/down left/right forward/backward (space)

So with confidence I can start building up my belief system on those limited assumptions, and from here I can go on to further define the what "I" am, and further what we can be confident of in this Space/Time - It is possible to question whether this is the real universe or if we're just in a matrix-like computer simulation - however upon waking up we simply end up in a different type of universe in which the same question could be asked - thus it is not useful to seek the answer to that question - So i find it fair and useful to assume this universe is the real - and will hence-forth capitalise it Universe.

So I am trying to building up a common belief system on which we all agree that we have confidence in - not a system of knowledge which Thucydide can't conclusively agree on because he can't make conclusions about knowledge. (not useful, and thus i am not interested in exploring those ideas, however valid they may be)

@SSReichsFuhrer:
You said people's questions can be answered, but mostly I just see rationalizing.

@Everyone else: re: the first cause problem.

I don't have confidence that all things must be created, you're making some leap there which is unstated.

So to continue with my confident common knowledge, and to get at issue of first cause as quickly as possible, we need to better define the "I".

First, and because i've admited Space this "I" thing is limited in it's existance to certain parts of space. Where exactly they are i'm not able to define precisely (down to more than the cellular level) and even then I'm not sure that nails and hair count, and what about skin cells when they shed but before they die, what about sugars after the food they come from are dissolved but before they are assimulated from the blood... is there a definte scientific definition? no. But from first princples, we do have confidences that there are end points in space.

We also have confidence that there are end points in time. Birth and Death, against where precisely a new life formed becomes an "I" is difficult to define precisely (hence the abortion debate) and the end point (death) has similar issues (hence the debate over pulling the plug on people in a persistant vegatitive state, note NOT the assisted suicide/right to die issue)

It seems fair to ask then does the Universe have a start/end point in space/time.

Given that best astronomical observations can't see beyond the horizon I can't tell you anything about the spatial end points. (maybe a better physcist than me can) Given that in the 19th century it was assumed that the universe was in perfect balance - God's perfect creation - and only 20th century observations of star movement showed all starts are moving away from us and hence working backwards in the past the stars/alaxies must have been much closer - bringing us to the big bang theory - I do not have confidence in the Big bang theory, so no definite understanding that the Universe has a start/end in time.

As stated by others it is fine to assume some things weren't first created - but instead always have been, otherwise we find ourselves in a loop like the is this universe real question - So it is possible that the Universe has always existed - only changing in form - and i will not be confident of anything else until I have some sort of evidence to back it up.

Going further into creation - we are an arrangment of matter - (brilliantly illustrated by xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/659/) creation - what comes before our birth - is simply a process where parts of the Universe arrange themselves in a particular way - death similarily is a process where that arrangment breaks down - and re-arranges again. (FYI: this is really cool)

That said the specific energy/atoms/molecules/cells which are parts of us change aswell - it's all a process - the "I" is a specific type of arrangement of atoms and molecules - one which changes over time.

The evidence for this is mostly scientific/common sense, but i think we can have confidence in this information. (are there are specific objecions?)

oh, and while the difference between the religious and non-religious among us is confidence in specific books, i hope my lowest common denominators are agreed by all.

re: usefulnes - question which are not useful have been ignored by my analysis, however if you find a use for them please help me by explaining.

@ SunZi:
I was calling it "Marvin" because that's what obiwanobiwan suggested. I am Christian.

@ Orthaic:
The big bang seems highly plausible, since no astronomical observations have contradicted it.
Technically speaking, if the universe were to exist for as long as it would by natural causes, it would not "end" in that it would not be destroyed. Rather, it would expearience "heat death," leaving it cold and dark and vast. (Plenty of material about this out there. I like the book "The Creator and the Cosmos, by Hugh Ross, Ph. D." myself)

@ SSReichsFuhrer
Yes, many do not know there faith as they should, but is some one with a name "SS... Reichs...Fuhrer" claiming to be on our side?
What the heck is with that name??????
Are you nuts??????

@baumhaeuer:

Yes, it is plausible, but that doesn't mean i have confidence in the theory. It is possible that a God exists - but just because we can defined God to mean anything which fits all other evidence we have. That doesn't mean i have confidence in the existance of God (unless you happen to identify the idea of God with the idea of Universe - which would make you a pantheist)

Why quibble with Christians?
We are taught to believe not to give in to the demands of blackmailers or terrorists. But Christians? 'Don't quibble' - right? Right? They're wrong . . . fundamentally.

And so may they all go to that wonderful hell they (for some crazy reason to do with guilt) created for themselves.

@Timur
That is a perfect example of the type of meaningless dogma we are trying to avoid here.

@orathaic
I do NOT have confidence that there are end points in time. Perhaps everything is merely transitions from one state to another and end points are merely our perception. Like a snowflake formed in a cloud and melted on the ground but the water remains. We perceive the snowflake as having a limited existence but the sum total of it's essence is neither created nor destroyed.

obiwan:

I believe the reason that most Christians can't discuss things philosophical is because their Christian faith is based on fallen doctrine. Christianity started at the beginning of mankind. Adam, and all the prophets since, all worshiped God according to his commandments. The Jewish people stopped listening to the prophets (the latter half of the Old Testament talks all about this) and therefor went into apostasy (meaning their religion was no longer guided by God through revelation given to his prophets. Amos 3:7 says "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, lest he reveal his secrets unto his servants, the prophets."

During Christ's ministry, he re-established His true church by calling new prophets, the12 Apostles. Eventually, the Apostles and prophets we all killed. With the death of these men came another apostasy, an event that God predicted and prophets prophesied throughout the Old and New Testaments. After many of the truths of Christ's gospel were lost (with no prophets to keep them in line), branches of the leftover Christian religion started squabbling over doctrine. Soon, Christianity became politically popular under Constantine and a bunch of Christian leaders got together in Nicaea to literally "vote" on doctrine, hence the Nicene Creed. Many of the popular decisions reached at this council completely contradicted the true gospel of Christ and, unfortunately, established much of the confusing doctrine that most Christians believe today. The mark of the true church of Jesus Christ is the existence of modern-day revelation from God to Apostles and Prophets who lead His church.

So to get back to your comment, most Christen's faith cannot agree with scientific findings because the faith is based on a fallen doctrine, often disagreeing with the truth. Science and religion should always coincide with truth as long as science is done correctly (many accepted scientific facts have been dis-proven throughout the centuries; even today's accepted facts may be dethroned tomorrow because scientists jumped to conclusions) and as long as religious doctrine comes from God through revelation rather than man's traditions and uninspired interpretation of scripture.

I am not saying Christianity is false. I am saying that many Christian beliefs are not inline with Christ's true gospel. I am a devout Christian and I know that God talks with His prophets on the earth today to guide and direct His church.

Let me know if anyone wants to know more about this.

And what church are you from? Jehova's Witnesses?

Oh, in regards to those "God's will" quandries, I have a joke that makes a good point:

A guy has recently become a Christian.
Then a flood happens.
As water is running down the street, a guy in a pickup drives by and asks: "Want a ride? The river's rising..."
The new Christian says: "No thanks. God will save me."
The water floods out the first floor.
A boat comes by and offers the guy a lift.
The new Christian says "No thanks. God will save me."
The water floods the second floor.
Another boat comes by and the same conversation happens.
The water floods the attic and the guy is sitting on the roof.
A helicopter comes by and offers to pick him up, but he declines.
The water submerges the house and the guy drowns.
I heaven, he asks God: "Why didn't you save me?"
God replies: "I sent you a pickup, two boats and a helicopter: what more did you want?"

The point I was thinking of was that God usually works through means.
If the people are in a burning building and you can rescue them, DO IT!
You are his means for saving them. Just because they are in danger of losing their lives does not mean that that is what God intends or wants.
Besides, that same God gave us a moral code to live by, one of the points of which is "You will not murder." What would letting people burn when you could help them be called?

@SunZi: you said "a snowflake formed in a cloud and melted on the ground but the water remains. We perceive the snowflake as having a limited existence but the sum total of it's essence is neither created nor destroyed." - but the way we define it, a snowflake is fozen water, it is an arrangment of the attoms in a local stable minimum (when you heat them they gain energy and find a different stable point) - so because it is stable it lasts long enough for us to define it.

Then as soon as the arrangment changes it's not a snowflake anymore. (just as when a human dies it becomes a corpse - just as when you eat food and shed skin cells the exact atoms involved in your body change as molecules pass in and out of cells, new cells are created - well old cells divide into multiple different cells... it is a process) As far as i'm aware when I die there is an endpoint or change. Part of some process.

I'm not saying there is nothing after - I am saying i will define the I as having endpoints, i don't know what comes after, but with confidence I can say "I" will die - I suppose i can worry about what happen next afterwards, if there is an afterlife; I don't think we can all agree on what happen after that endpoint.

@baumhaeuer: "nice joke, i like it"

@baumhaeuer: it's the guy who prayed to God to win the lottery every single week of his life. He never won, and when he got to heaven he asked God why he never granted the prayer, and God said, "well at least meet me half way, buy a ticket"

But while i like your example of saving someone from a fire - the idea that we are the means which God uses to complete his works is what the 9/11 highjackers were thinking. Doing the work of God striking down the corrupt American infidels.

@orathaic
Looking at a snowflake it is easy to define it but as it lies melting on the ground it would be hard to define at exactly what point it stops being a snowflake. Similar to your earlier example of defining at exactly what point a collection of cells becomes a person. My suggestion is that these are not "points" but rather continua from one state to another.

yeah beetle bailey i'd like to know more.

ive always been chiefly a skeptic of "pauline christianity" that is, chiefly, anything but christ's teachings. so if there is a belief system out there based on that, i'd like to hear about it

ok, i agree with you there. It is a process. End point is just what i'm used to seeing at the end of a line, if you zoom out enough it looks like a point...

It is fair to say all things are just flux, states changing from one to the other; and then look at the entrophy. However for the moment let's just say there are limits in time and space, beyond which we're no longer people.

@orathaic:
About the highjackers: I was answering an observation about Christianity made by obiwanobiwan...Islam, having a different god than Christianity and a different path to heaven, is a whole other subject.
Also, in case you wonder, it was about Christian theology. It was not supposed to prove anything.

"ive always been chiefly a skeptic of "pauline christianity" that is, chiefly, anything but christ's teachings. so if there is a belief system out there based on that, i'd like to hear about it"

I recommend to you my books "What I Believe" and "The Kingdom of God is Within You". They're both available on Amazon. I advocated a strict interpretation of Christ's teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount and rejected many of the absurd doctrines formulated after Christianity became a pet of Kings and Popes (like that whole 1+1+1=1 thing). I followed Jesus' teachings, renouncing my worldly wealth and tried to give it all away to the poor (although my harpy wife fought me bitterly over this). For this, I was declared a heretic and excommunicated by the church and my religious writings were all banned in Russia.

In addition to Amazon, most of my writings are available here for free:
http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/