You have to distinguish between falsifiable in principle, in isolation from any data, and falsifiable in light of prior observations. Is a hypothesis that has survived a great many attempts at falsification still falsifiable? Consider, for example, the hypothesis that there are things called atoms. Is that falsifiable? Is there anything we could do now to convince us that atoms do not exist?
As for God, he seems unnecessary to explain anything we see, and much of what we see seems inconsistent with his proposed nature of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. Thus I conclude that such a being probably doesn’t exist. What would falsify that conclusion would have been a rather different world, but it’s a bit late for that.
Now, some different sort of God could provide evidence of his existence by manifesting in some way, perhaps as a burning bush or pillar of fire. But given the data of the world, that still wouldn’t be the person you’re thinking of.