Hawking Comes Clean

Of course not. A statement isn't relatively metaphysical depending on who says it. If a statement makes a claim about the fundamental nature of being and the world, it is metaphysical.I think maybe you have a wrong view of what metaphysical means. Maybe you should read the wiki article about it a bit ? Metaphysics - WikipediaIf Hawkins really meant what KB says he meant, then it falls into the category of metaphysical claim. Doesn't matter if he believes in God or not, doesn't matter from your POV if you believe in God or not, doesn't matter from my POV if I believe in God or not. It's still a metaphysical claim.

A fact? A fact??? What he stated is about as far from a fact as language allows.One can't say no God is "needed" to explain what is seen. There is no explanation for what we can see! Where does gravity come from? Where do atoms, heat, elements, matter, nuclear forces...? Is this more sophomore salad to ask where it all comes from? We get to just say, well, it just exists...its nature? If there were dragon shaped planets, and peppermint sticks raining into chocolate rivers, we can just explain it as just what nature is? How far do we get to extend this rationale for things? Can there be Ferris wheels floating through space, spinning giants cars full of gumby dolls, and we can say, this is just part of the universe, it doesn't require an explanation?The universe is those peppermint sticks and gumby dolls, and we just don't think its strange because we see it everyday. But it is there everyday, nevertheless, despite Hawking's or anyone else jaded dismissive nonchalance. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Of course a statement can be metaphysical or not. It all depends on the pov of the speaker and the listener.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Of course it is a fact.If things can be explained without referring to some god then guess what, no god need apply.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Of course I know what you think you mean, but that doesn't help. You are trying to match together something infinitely precise with something vague and fuzzy, and it doesn't work.You understand ''God was upholding his creation' in the context of Christianity because it is a typical Christian thing to say. I have no clue what it means. Seriously. If god stops upholding creation, what happens? Does this ccour within time, outside time? Does existence just end? What does that mean?And I really don't have any useful definition of God. Nothing in Christianity helps - it is just one ridiculous anthromorphism after another. I really am not trying to play word games. I really am at a loss for meaning. But I will only say this loosely. On its own, it means nothing. I could spend hours just talking about what I do mean by this, and it would all be solid science/mathematics.

Ah I see. You are pointing out the distinction between heat death and cold death due to expansion. Is that right?I don’t think Buz’s eternal universe concept has any expansion taking place. So his proposal necessarily requires that the universe would currently be in a state of maximum entropy (i.e. heat death).Which obviously it isn’t.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote

Buz I still don't think you are making much sense.Are you suggesting that the universe is currently in a state of maximum entropy?

Yep Buz's eternal universe concept is bollocks.

We know that stars require fuel, lighter elements capable of fusing into heavier elements, in order to burn.
There is no new supply of lighter elements.
ergo..Think of it in terms of the rain/evaporation cycle on earth. For rain to exist there has to be humidity in the atmosphere to condense.
Remove the evaporation of water from the cycle and the cycle stops.There is no recycling of elements from the intermediate mass range back to the lighter mass range.A good book to read might be "Modern theories of the Universe" from Herschel to Hubble" by Michael J. Crowe
It is not very current but is useful as an overview of the history of our understanding of the cosmos and how it developed. Once you gain an appreciation for what it took to get to where we are in our understanding you will be less inclined to dismiss it all with the wave of a hand..WMAP- Life and Death of StarsFuture of an expanding universe - Wikipedia

well here we have two problems - one is that you don't understand Hawking's math. I don't either, but calling it "sophomore salad" won't make the equations no longer make sense to somebody with enough training and understanding to read them.So you can wave your ignorance of advanced math as it pertains to space-time geometry around if you want, but don't expect a cookie.So yes, it's a fact that the equations Hawking has put together do not require god, and do seem to do a good job explaining everything.On the other hand, it's still not "proof" of non-existence (proving a negative being exceedingly difficult at the best of times) but it is proof (as long as he is correct) on non-requirement.Now, if you wish to claim god did it anyway you can go ahead, but it won't change the facts.You can dispute the facts, but you'll need a college degree and then some to get anywhere - not because they won't listen to people without one, but because people without one don't know the hell what they're talking about.I know which path you'll take.

I think it's been posited that now it's here, it's eternal - the language we have can't deal with a point "before" time or "outside" of space, however we can postulate that what we see was a lot smaller, hotter and denser at some known time in the past.It gets difficult to discuss, because at T0 the universe is already infinite, expanding and here.On the other hand, there's talk of island universes budding off out of some eternal quantum foam, such that we would find it extremely difficult to traverse from "here" to "there". to us, my understanding is it would look like an infinitely small, dense pocket of space-time from which nothing could escape...i.e a black hole.And the other side would look like an infinitely small pocket of dense space-time which would suddenly explode into, well, everything...i.e a white hole.neat idea, so I have plans on escaping the heat-death of the universe

No, a statement will be considered metaphysical or not based on what message it contains. What it is saying and what it is trying to explain.a statement can't be metaphysical for one person and not for another.If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview ? If you say, ''the laws of physic do not need God to operate consistently'', how is this not a metaphysical statement both for you and for me, and for anyone else ?A statement can be evaluated on it's own value, you don't need to know who claimed it to identify this.

If the term God has absolutely no meaning, then the statement is not metaphysical, just silly.BUT...that was not what was said.What was said is "No god needed."Totally not a metaphysical statement.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The term God (or any term used in a sentence) rarely has no meaning. It can, however have a bizzard or silly meaning. But then it just means the statement is a silly metaphysical statement. Then you didn't really read what I said, or you didn't try to understand what I was meaning.If ''No god needed'' is interpreted as Kbertsche interprets what Hawkins meant, then it is a metaphysical statement.Anyway I don't get what's wrong with a theoretical physicist saying a metaphysical statement. It's really not the most surprising thing in the world in my opinion. There seems to be a resistance with this idea as if you were allergic to metaphysical claims, when in fact everyone who has a worldview (and indeed, everybody has a worldview), either it be atheist-agnostic-theist, absolutely will have to make some degree of metaphysical claims, even if it is to claim that nothing supernatural exists.

It will be seen by some as metaphorical, provided that they give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is meaningful.