Scientific theory is different than conjecture. A theory as almost a fact, save for it being untestable.

A law is a fact (through our understanding), a theory is a theory.

There are certainly sound theories for the existence of god, such as our lack of understanding of how we came to be (going back to the creation of the universe) - highlighted in a previous post: even if the big bang was the cause of the universe as we know it, what caused the big bang?

People who discount science are stupid, though and I will say straight out that they are douchebags

Empirical theory is different to regular theory like you say, however a theory must be testable and falsifiable. Big Bang is actually a Scientific Model, not a theory.

Theories are not made through deductive logic. Theories are made through induction (inductive logic) from a body of observable evidence. Ergo, there are no theories of/for god. There are hypotheses sure, but not theories.

This is true for empirical theory only.
There are certianly many theories for God.

You could even stipulate that inductive logic occured when someone thought of the idea of a benevolent creator. They observed life and made an induction

And the observable evidence being life? I could observe spaghetti and induce that there are flying spaghetti monsters living deep under the ground. Would that 'theory' be any less credible that god?

That's a terrible example and not even close to as credible as the concept of a creator.

You can logically deduce that life was created (through any means imaginable) due to the fact it is present. Spaghetti being present has no correlation to flying spaghetti monsters.

Stop being a retard.

I knew this thread would turn into a bunch of "intellectuals" flapping their egos around. This thread isnt even worth reading anymore.

Congrats.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Besides, everyone knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster lives in the sky.

Operative word: Theory.

Then how can you immediately discredit my spaghetti monster 'theory'?