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.
As I stated in the body of my remarks, “....Under criticism, the verification principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutations into the falsification principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.” See Anthony Flew’s remarks from the Oxford University symposium on “Theology and Falsification” held in 1948. Flew admits his theory was mistaken and that the theory of falsification is not meaningful in and of itself. It is self-refuting and defeats itself. Read what you wrote. “....it has to be falsifiable.” Is that statement true and falsifiable? Clearly the answer is ‘NO’...it is circular reasoning as therefore meaningless.