Claiming that gods are not in contradiction with science just because science can't test them is disingenuous, and silly, and clueless about the way science works.
To hear the apologist describe it, scientists just sit around all day throwing out random hypotheses, then figuring which ones they can test. That's absurd. That's like trying to trying to build a 747 by sending a tornado through a scrap yard. Oh, wait, that's how they think evolution works.
The part the apologist always misses is the part where the hypothesis gets generated in the first place. They don't just get pulled out of scientist's asses. Observations are made that need explaining, and the hypotheses are offered explanations. But before you even get
to the part where you start asking if the hypothesis is testable or not, you start stripping away the hypotheses that either a) don't explain the observations properly or b) require unnecessary complexity to explain the observations. This is Occam's Razor.
So a scientist observes that every time an object is unsupported, it falls toward the ground. Whether it just rolls off a table or it has been thrown up into the air, eventually it is going to fall to the ground unless something holds it up. That's her observation. So she wonders what causes that, and starts throwing out hypotheses. Maybe there's some force that pulls everything toward the Earth. Or maybe there are trillions of invisible fairies who zip around and push every object that is in the air down to the ground. These two hypotheses are not equal, because the first hypothesis only has a single unknown element - what is the mysterious force - while the second hypothesis has countless unknown elements: what are the fairies, where did they come form, why they're invisible, how
they're invisible, why do they push objects down, how do they never fail to push objects down, how do they manage to always push objects down at the same rate, etc. etc. So the scientist discards the fairy theory, and does tests to determine the existence and nature of this mysterious force. That's how science works.
Treating the "god hypothesis" as if it's a hypothesis at all - merely one that is currently untestable - is a bit of a joke. There are absolutely no observations that justify it at all, and there probably never can be, because a god is so
absurdly complex (theologists have been trying to describe gods for thousands of years, and their descriptions are still incoherent) that there will probably always
be a simpler explanation. Gods are
in contradiction with science, because they involve a claim about the universe that, from the point of view of science, should not even be made in the first place - not merely a claim that can be made but not tested.
So the next time some apologist comes along and says, "oh, science doesn't rule out gods - it merely can't test for them yet," just give them a smile and a pat on the head for being so adorably clueless. Gods are not "untestable hypotheses" in science; they're not even hypotheses.