And, no, we're not back to Russell's teacup. It seems as though you have at least some philosophical background, yet no logical one.
Again, you seem to have no clue what constitutes "metaphysics". I see that you have a thread on Craig's Kalam. The argument's first premise is a metaphysical judgment. Any statement suggesting what one OUGHT to do is a metaphysical one. The statement that there is, in fact, a universe is, itself, a metaphysical judgment.
Science alone will never be enough because we need a means by which to direct science in the manner that it ought to be directed. If you want to debar metaphysics, then you can never say what ought to be done. Without metaphysics there can be no imperative for science. Even if we, for some reason, decide to engage in science, there would be, without metaphysics, no way to determine whether we should use humans as test subjects.
Seriously, you are presenting major gaps in your philosophical understanding. You seem to think that metaphysics is synonymous with the "supernatural". "Extra-natural" is probably a better way to look at it. Previously I had thought you might be an undergrad studying philosophy, but it is now apparent that you really don't have much understanding of how philosophy works. I think you could even benefit from reading a Wikipedia article on metaphysics.
I too can engage in the same obfuscation. My theism is not a statement about the existence of God, but simply an acknowledgement that I believe; thus it is senseless to prosecute an argument since I'm not really asserting anything other than my belief. It doesn't matter that this has nothing to do with traditional theism. <Insert some comic balderdash about connotation and denotation.> Okay, okay, so God might not really exist, but I'm still a theist even though my position might technically look no different from agnosticism. <Insert rudimentary explanation of probabilistic logic> Okay, okay, I have no idea what metaphysics means, but whatever.... There's no reason theism can't be some non-committal hokum that allows me to evade any serious criticism of my ideas. Oh, and Bayes!
Look, cut out the BS for a second. Let us suppose that belief in God exists on a continuum of certainty from absolute disbelief to absolute belief. If we are to investigate the subject, the investigation must be conducted within the context "God exists" VS. "God does not exist". I am not suggesting you should change your opinion; I am, however, suggesting that the monolithic shift in the argument to "God Exists" VS. "I don't believe in God" is idiotic.