God, heaven, and hell only exist metaphysically, not physically. Therefore, are only ideas.

I feel that it is fundamental to understand how we perceive existence. Descartes famously said "Cogito ergo sum", or "I think, therefore I am."(http://en.wikipedia.org......) He proved this with an example. Let's imagine that there is an invisible evil genius is filling our minds with incorrect idea's to keep us for understanding the truth. It's childish, but can you prove it's not true? Descartes figured out that If the evil genius was fooling him, he'd have to exist in order for him to do just that. If we doubt our own existence, we must exist in order to doubt it.You are correct about Descartes and his famous "Cogito". His Cogito does logically proof the individual's existence. However you overlook the fact that the Cogito does not "prove" we exist as physical beings nor does it prove that other intelligences exist. They could all be a dream. This was pointed out by subsequent philosopher whose name it seems everyone has forgotten, with his "side-bar" to the Cogito saying "I dream therefore I exist." You seem to overlook the fact that both of these philosophers are agreeing with my side of the debate rather than yours. Both speculate out that a being can exist as an "intelligence" or as a "dream" without having physical form at all and yet be more than just an idea. The reason I try to stay away from rational metaphysics is because it is simply flawed at times. If I think rationally about Descartes' s findings I would ask myself, "Could his findings just be another incorrect idea of the evil genius?" We can answer this, not with rationality, but with subjectivity. This is the point where faith and emotion must come into play, because there is no factual evidence or something that is observed to support the existence of god. Therefore, you cannot prove it rationally. I'm pretty sure there was even experiments done that proved quantum mechanics. But not god. It's nearly instinctive for humans to decide subjectively when they don't know. This is the case of reality. I am here. I am typing. I am looking at the computer screen. These are all subjective statements. By acting on these subjective thoughts, I give them validity, therefore meaning to me and my life. One could even argue that the past doesn't exist. You are correct as well in pointing out the flaw in deductive reasoning, just as whoever the philospher was pointed out the error in the Cogito. However the very point of the Cogito was the fact thay you cannot prove that you are typing an looking at a computer screen. You cannot even prove your existence to me as I may be having a dream that I am debating with you. You can only prove you exist as an intelligence to yourself. Nothing more. Descartes went on to bring God existence into thie issue because the fact that God would not deceive us was the only way he could accept the physical reality. I want to point out that virtually every invention of man was as a result of deductive reasoning. To rule out rational metaphysics and that truth can be discovered by reason is to rule out all deductive reasoning and philosophy as well.These could all be considered ideas."I love you." "I hate you." Theoretically, you're proposing an subjective idea about how you feel about somebody. I understand what you're saying, but you're still proposing ideas. Even with love, there is something being observed, so it can be ruled out rationally. Plus I found this article about how true love was observed as a chemical reaction (http://jezebel.com......) God is essentially just an idea that more than 1 person believes in. This makes it a subjectively stronger idea, yet an idea nonetheless.You miss my point concerning love and hate. As I pointed out I am not talking about an emotion or saying "I love/hate you." Nor am I talkig about the chemical reactions in our bodies that produce hormonal attraction. And please note that your link is mere fluffy hearsay because it contains no link to the supposed actual research of the supposed "scientists". Even the article credited to an on-line writer ("according to..."). To say that to show pictures and obtain a chemical reaction does not therefore define true love as a chemical reaction. There is a love that goes far, far deeper. An abiding presence. A love of God, a love of mankind... not just a desire to help those less fortunate but seeing everyone as a true brother or sister. True love exists, but it is not found in any chemicals.All of these articles provide solid findings. But I can choose to disbelieve in them subjectively. I haven't seen the real proof with my own eyes, therefore it may not exist. Overall, I do not believe that this is a debate about evolution or science. The debate is rooted in religion and philosophy. Plus I could think of a BILLION ways for aliens to program us to believe in god.Finally, absolutely everything can be considered an idea. I think you nailed your coffin tight with the remark "I can choose to disbelieve in them subjectively". Is reality up to what you say reality is? Can there exist a difinitive truth even though you or I do not know what that truth is? As I have pointed out things can be deduced by rational thought. The fact that we have an "idea" in no way shape or form means that our idea exists ONLY as an idea. Logic takes us from the known to the unknown. It is this very idea that scientists have been able to seriously speculate about other dimensions even there is no way of possibly proving it.And yes, you are correct in pointing out that an alien life form could have programmed us to believe in God. The question is that if they did not believe in God themselves why would they do that? I can understand if they had programmed us to be peaceful to THEM. But if they themselves had no notion of God why would they program others to believe in Him? Sorry, but I do not see the sense in that.Finally as I pointed out that because you or have an idea certainly does not make that idea correct. Nor does it make it incorrect. What we think exists may in fact exist in reality, even if not physically. If as those scientists and other have said that the "supernatural" does exist then all they have done is increased the liklihood of God existing supernaturally.