1. I see just repeating the assertion in more complicated way and depending on it through out in a circular fashion. You haven't proven we cannot have anything such thing as innate knowledge. I'm sorry. You haven't.
2. The cosmological argument is not one we are discussing. We are talking about the fact existence cannot come out of non-existence with no cause. In your example, existence simply changed with no cause and time began to apply to it. That is difference from there being nothing, and existence coming out of it after there being nothing. I'm saying that which makes innately know that, makes us innately know the other, because it's relying on one and the same knowledge. Again, this has nothing to do with beginning of universe.
3. No, it's simply a reminder, but you seem to thing asserting we don't know it is somehow proof and argument against the claim.
2. The cosmological argument is not one we are discussing. We are talking about the fact existence cannot come out of non-existence with no cause. In your example, existence simply changed with no cause and time began to apply to it. That is difference from there being nothing, and existence coming out of it after there being nothing. I'm saying that which makes innately know that, makes us innately know the other, because it's relying on one and the same knowledge. Again, this has nothing to do with beginning of universe.
3. No, it's simply a reminder, but you seem to thing asserting we don't know it is somehow proof and argument against the claim.
