No, just that it has to be falsifiable.
You are asserting the mid-twentieth century philosophy of logical positivism which champion the verification principle, meaning according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified. The verification principleunderwent a number of changes including its permutation into the falsification principle which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.
However, in general, verificationists analysis of meaning ran into two insuperable problems: (1)the verification/falsification principle was too restrictive. It was quickly realized that on such theories of meaning vast tracts of obviously meaningful discourse would have to be declared meaningless, including scientific statements, which the principle had aimed to preserve. (2)The principle was self-defeating philosophically. The statement, "In order to be meaningful and informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified/falsified is itself incapable of being verified or falsified, and therefore by its own lights a meaningless statement-or at best, an arbitrary definition which we are free to reject. The inadequacies of the positivistic theory of meaning led to the complete collapes of logical positivism during the second half of the twentiety century, and thus helped spark a revival of interest not only in metaphysics but in philosophy of religion as well.
Another philosophical relic is the much-vaunted presumption of atheism. At face value, this is the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is sort of a default position, and the theist bears a special burdon of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. So understood, such an alleged presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. But one must remember that the statement "God does not exist" is just as much a claim as that of the theist and therefore justification and warrant is required to support both positions.
Therefore when you make a statement, "....that it has to be falsifiable" you make an assertion which is narrow and demands what it, itself, cannot provide...that being verifiability. That is why logical positivism which championed the verification/falsification principles have long since fossilized into meaninglessness.
You are asserting the mid-twentieth century philosophy of logical positivism which champion the verification principle, meaning according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified.
No, you assume wrong, I didn't say verification. Verification isn't equivalent to falsification. Look up Karl Popper.