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

You are correct about Descartes and his famous "Cogito". His Cogito does logically proof the individuals 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. You are correct as well in pointing out the flaw in deductive reasoning, just as whoever the philosopher was pointed out the error in the Cogito. However the very point of the Cogito was the fact they 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 the 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.You are still overlooking everything I said about subjectivity. Yes! What if we cant prove this, what if we cant prove that. That's when we must act on impassion and emotion to answer the question. I believe we are using subjectivity to give us the validity that you are there, we are debating etc. If we cannot prove anything, we must be subjective about it. I'm not saying I do not believe in intelligent design, I'm saying I do not believe in intelligent design by god because both you and I know all the inconsistencies that have been covered in every other god debate. 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.This is a very important point. But if I don't exist, why or how are you debating me? The thing is you're still debating me, therefore I still retain value in your mind, so I exist as a subjective idea. I've come to the realization the true meaning of this debate is not regarding metaphysics. It simply comes down to this: We cannot prove god rationally, because god has no OBJECTIVITY. The truth about god can only be answered with SUBJECTIVITY. EVERTHING IS SUBJECTIVE.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 talking 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 definetrue 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.I admit that article was pretty bad. But this whole paragraph shows a lot of unneeded humanism. Let me ask you a question, "Why should we love mankind if this may all be a dream and they mean nothing?" You're just contradicting yourself. This "deep" love you speak of, I've never felt it, so how does it exist? The evidence you are simply providing only affects you and not me. It's like when somebody says " Oh yes, I always feel that god is with me everywhere I go."That's you, not me.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 definitive truth even though you or I do not know what that truth is?TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE, which makes it definitive to you or I. You cannot determine if my definition of reality is reality, so you are forced to draw conclusions SUBJECTIVELY. As I have pointed out things can be deduced by rational thought. Yes, this is partly true. I'm not saying that rationality cannot deduce anything, this would be absurd. But Rationality is limited when it comes to the god debate, due to the fact that there is no objectivity. What I'm saying is Science and rationality have no consideration for ultimate purposes. Nietzsche said this in "Human, All Too Human."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.Very good point. Every invention does start as an idea does it not? The inventors want this idea to exist, so they make it exist. THIS IS SUBJECTIVE, and the same could be said about god. Again, god can be proved subjectively, not rationally.I can understand if they had programmed us to be peaceful to THEM.I agree with this. 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.As you said before the possibilities are endless. I personally think they would do it for the sake of maintaining a basic sense of control and organization. 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.FOR THE 40TH TIME, THIS MUST FORCE US TO THINK SUBJECTIVELY. If as those scientists and other have said that the "supernatural" does exist then all they have done is increased the likelihood of God existing supernaturally.Like you said in the previous sentence, ideas could be incorrect. The real truth is subjective, not objective.