They should be falsifiable and they should make predictions under various conditions and be right about them for the hypothesis to be considered a theory. Does

They should be falsifiable and they should make predictions under various conditions and be right about them for the hypothesis to be considered a theory. Does this have them? Usually successful hypotheses have a body of work behind them, say like Newton’s principia or Darwin’s origin of species. They usually have corollaries and extensions which extol the same truth in various ways. Rest is opinion/speculation - just because it is religion I won’t give it a free pass.