"If it's not scientific, it's not a theory. If it's not scientific, it's not even a hypothesis. "
Note that I did not say 'scientific theory'. Theory, the word, has different meanings. One of them is 'belief'. If you would prefer, I will use that instead.
"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."
The process of disproving a theory and the process of building a different one are distinctly different and often not made by the same person or in the same time period. This has been repeated often, but phlogiston is a good example from Wikipedia: The theory was found flawed, some attempts were made to revise it and it remained the main theory. About twenty years later, the oxygen requirement for combustion was discovered and the theory was finally thrown away when the caloric theory was put in its place. There's no point in rejecting something if you don't have something better to fill its place. The point after all isn't to have something absolutely correct but to have something that explains phenomena and measurements as reliably as possible.
"Science already has you covered regarding the improbability of God existing: What testable predictions does theism make?"
That's why theism is NOT a scientific theory, it utterly fails as one. In a scientific context, it is much more reasonable to immediately reject it as extremely improbable (like you've already stated).
BUT, Science has failed so far to provide any answer to "where did the universe come from" that is any less improbable; if theism was that ridiculous, then any mediocre scientist could come up with theory that is at least a little less improbable. If there is such a theory, I'm not educated about it and would appreciate any and all enlightenment.
no subject
Note that I did not say 'scientific theory'. Theory, the word, has different meanings. One of them is 'belief'. If you would prefer, I will use that instead.
"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."
The process of disproving a theory and the process of building a different one are distinctly different and often not made by the same person or in the same time period. This has been repeated often, but phlogiston is a good example from Wikipedia: The theory was found flawed, some attempts were made to revise it and it remained the main theory. About twenty years later, the oxygen requirement for combustion was discovered and the theory was finally thrown away when the caloric theory was put in its place. There's no point in rejecting something if you don't have something better to fill its place. The point after all isn't to have something absolutely correct but to have something that explains phenomena and measurements as reliably as possible.
"Science already has you covered regarding the improbability of God existing: What testable predictions does theism make?"
That's why theism is NOT a scientific theory, it utterly fails as one. In a scientific context, it is much more reasonable to immediately reject it as extremely improbable (like you've already stated).
BUT, Science has failed so far to provide any answer to "where did the universe come from" that is any less improbable; if theism was that ridiculous, then any mediocre scientist could come up with theory that is at least a little less improbable. If there is such a theory, I'm not educated about it and would appreciate any and all enlightenment.