If God doesn't exist then what are the foundations of logic?

Is this argument evidence of the existence of heaven: "For every need humans have there is a corresponding means of fulfillment. There is hunger and so there is food, there is lust and therefore sex. Finally there is desire for eternal happiness, therefore there must be heaven." I don't think that this is a good argument but I don't know how to refute it. Thanks.

I am not trained in formal logic, so I was hoping you could help me with the moral argument for the existence of God, postulated as follows: 1. If God doesn't exist, then objective moral standards don't exist. 2. Objective moral standards exist. Therefore God exists. I don't really understand why the arguer is allowed to throw in premise 2. It seems that in order to prove that objective moral standards exist, you must first prove that God exists (because the objective moral standards come from God). Since the truth of premise 2 depends on the conclusion of the argument, it seems the argument collapses into a circle. I guess what I'm really saying is that any theist I know would concede that premise 1 is actually an if and only if statement (again, because morality is inextricably linked with God). After all, if you could prove that objective moral standards exist without appealing to God, then you've demonstrated morality's independence from the existence of God and thus nullified the argument. I...

I have a question about separation of religion and politics,especially about French "laïcité". My understanding is that laïcité is removing religion from public places. But what is religion? For example, female Moslems living in France are not allowed to wear scarves in public schools because it is tought to be a symbol of Islam, a religion. However, also some morals (like loving your neighbors or helping out each other) are part of religion as it is written in Bible and Qur'an. As long as they are acting according to God's lesson, is it impossible to secularize any public places?

Should circumcising your child be illegal? I certainly think that female circumcision like that practiced in Islam should be, but what about a male child? The operation doesn’t seem too invasive but shouldn’t a young boy be given the right to choose? I mean, it –is- hygienic but it also mitigates sexual pleasure. Maybe I’d prefer to be delighted than clean? It's my body! Do I have to get pregnant before I actually have rights over it? I mean, if a girl who’s under age can’t be forced to have an abortion, why can people slice off the foreskin of my reproductive organs without consulting me? It seems to me that this tradition is only allowed because it's religious-which is absurd. It's also religious for a Muslim to strike his wife with an open palm to the head when she leaves the house without his permission. Some cults practice human sacrifice-we don’t allow these just because they’re religious culture/tradition, why circumcision? Just because a baby can’t speak out?

I know that agnostics believe truth (such as whether or not god exists) to be unknown. But does this imply that they believe that an absolute truth exists but cannot be obtained by humans? Basically my question is if agnostics think that truth is subjective or objective? Thanks!

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the Reformed Epistemology idea of the proof of God, but I am a total novice at this and I can't figure it out. As far as I can tell by the article "Without Evidence or Argument" by Kelly James Clark, the proof is 1) We should believe that God exists only with sufficient proof that God exists 2) We cannot get sufficient proof that God exists, because every argument would have to be justified by another argument infinitely Therefore, we do not need proof that God exists. I am completely baffled by this, and I'm pretty sure I'm reading it all wrong. I could really use a hand. Am I even understanding the premises at all?

It is a well publicized fact that voters are less likely to vote for atheists than for individuals of practically any other sort of minority. Why is this sort of discrimination generally not regarded as indicative of a really significant injustice? Why isn't the difficulty of atheists to achieve political office viewed as on par with racism, homophobia or other kinds of discrimination?

During the 2004 Presidential Debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry campaign a young female college student asked John Kerry about abortion and his political position on this issue. Kerry responded first by asserting that he is a Roman Catholic and that he did not endorse or feel good about the practice; but he added that he also believed that “articles of faith”, by which I presume he meant a religious belief about the moral status of abortion, are not matters of legislation or law (a position I fundamentally agree with). Kerry’s response seems to assume that morality, or at least morality based on religion, should not be a part of law; however, it also appears to me that it is difficult to imagine where law would derive its power if not from some kind of (religious?) moral basis. I have been trying to see how Kerry’s comment is intelligible in light of the dilemma of how laws would have any kind of power, or that there would be any justification for their authority, without some kind of moral...

Many Americans make the assumption that a person cannot be moral unless he subscribes to a religion. But philosophy is replete with ethical systems other than divine-command theory, some of which have been around for thousands of years. Why haven't teachers of philosophy been able to teach or convince the public that being moral does not necessarily depend upon believing in a divine being?