If it's not scientific, it's not a theory. If it's not scientific, it's not even a hypothesis.
Phlogiston and aether weren't rejected because a better theory came along. They were rejected because hypotheses about phlogiston and aether made testable predictions that were tested, and disproven. People came up with better hypotheses because of that disproof.
Science already has you covered regarding the improbability of God existing: What testable predictions does theism make? What experiment can be performed to test those predictions? If theists can't put any of these on the table, there's no reason for science to treat theism any more seriously than a belief in polka-dotted unicorns dancing the macarena -- phlogiston and aether actually fared better as science!
Assuming theists can put together a test for whatever predictions they come up with, how many such predictions need to fail before theists would acknowledge that theism can be classified alongside phlogiston and aether?
no subject
Phlogiston and aether weren't rejected because a better theory came along. They were rejected because hypotheses about phlogiston and aether made testable predictions that were tested, and disproven. People came up with better hypotheses because of that disproof.
Science already has you covered regarding the improbability of God existing: What testable predictions does theism make? What experiment can be performed to test those predictions? If theists can't put any of these on the table, there's no reason for science to treat theism any more seriously than a belief in polka-dotted unicorns dancing the macarena -- phlogiston and aether actually fared better as science!
Assuming theists can put together a test for whatever predictions they come up with, how many such predictions need to fail before theists would acknowledge that theism can be classified alongside phlogiston and aether?