Is the 'theory of god' a legitimate theory?

[Kholdstare]

I have been thinking lately, whether the "theory of god" can be called a theory at all?

So atheist is a person who does not believe in god (the "theory of god") and theist is one who does. But before we question ourselves whether we believe in a theory or not, should we not verify whether the "theory" even deserves to be called a theory in the first place?

My stand on this matter is that, I don't think the "theory of god" is a legitimate theory as it does not give us a way to test it. It is not falsifiable. (Here I consider the widespread notions of "theory of god". I have not found any testable claim made by that "theory".)

So, does not that separates me from the atheists who does not believe in god, but apparently think calling it a theory is valid? I thought of a term to describe a person who does not think "theory of god" even makes a theory. Its "aderationalist". "a" means not. "de"/"deus" means god. "rationalist" means ... well you already know that.

 

[Evo]

No a supernatural being does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory.