Are logical inferences hardwired into our brains?

I am upset that people have started using 'it begs the question' to introduce a question. For instance, "it begs the question: why do people incorrectly use phrases?" So my question, which isn't begged, is this: as philosophers, don't we have a duty to correct people in this regard? Or, is this (incorrect) use something we can live with?

Suppose we decide to let 'Steve' name the successor of the largest number anyone has ever thought about before next Tuesday. Can I now think about Steve? For example can I think (or even know) that Steve is greater than 2? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't that mean that some numbers are greater than themselves?

If there is a God, should we ever know who made him/her/it? And if the answer is "God has always existed" then why not argue that the universe has always existed (even before the BingBang) and therefore not created by God. What I am really trying to ask is: How is leaving a question's answer infinite, any answer at all?

How can we be sure that we perceive color the same way? In other words, how do I know that the red I see looks the same as the red that you see? We are taught from birth to identify red objects as red, but what if what someone calls red really looks green for example, yet they only call it red because that is what has been taught?

Can a question be a question without an answer?

Why is stupidity not painful?

Why is there no "happiness"ology? It seems that throughout history philosophy has strived to legitimize and analyze most basic human questions except that of what happiness is and how it is achieved. Is this accurate or am I mistaken?

How would you explain the color green to a blind child?

According to Descartes, there is only 1 truth, I think therefore I am. But if the fact that there is only 1 truth is true then there is not only 1 truth. I would like to know what the panelists' thoughts on this are.