Bugme Not's argument is itself a straw man and a bit disingenuous.
Science does not say, as BN asserts, that Deities cannot be tested because they are not falsifiable.
What science says is, in order to test claims about deities, they have to have testable measurable effects in the real physical world. They have to interact with reality in some way. If deities DO interact with the real world then, yes, science can test for these claimed interactions. If they do not, then there isn't much point in even discussing whether they exist or not.
At present the only tests of such interaction with the real world that I am aware of are the studies done on the efficacy of intercessory prayer on medical outcomes. As I recall there was no discernible effect. Thus a particular claim about deities was tested AND falsified.
While a believer in deities may concede that, in the above case, that a claim about their deity was falsified they may retreat (as they usually do) to the position that, yes, well, but the deity still exists. This retreat as been going on in fits and starts for thousands of years.
It is a retreat to irrelevance.
The final claim about deities is that the believer claims that belief in it makes them 'feel better', 'comfortable', 'meaningful', 'loved', (or whatever) While such claims may be relevant per individual it is hardly a compelling basis to make a claim that the deity actually exists.