My views on objective morality

[Esquilax]

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. 

Ah, the old "nuh uh!" defense. Fascinating.

I demonstrated, in painstaking detail, how true claims you can't demonstrate are indistinguishable from false claims. If you can look at the fact that literally nobody, including yourself, can tell whether what you "know" is true or false, and tell me that I haven't shown that you need the demonstrability that your "knowledge" lacks to show that what you claim actually is knowledge, than I don't know what to tell you.

But hey, let's be charitable: I've no interest in expending too much more effort on someone who's content to respond with "that doesn't prove anything," but I'll leave you with a question: how did you determine that your "innate knowledge" actually is that, rather than just a belief that you have? Can you even determine that, or is this just a case of you strongly overstating an opinion that you really want to be true, but can't in any way confirm?

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.

I'll ask again: do you intend to back up either of the two claims you've made?

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.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. What you've said is simply indistinguishable from a claim that's false. You need to actually bring something to the table more than the flat assertion you've brought thus far.