In the realm of experiment every outcome ideally either confirms a hypothesis, or fails to confirm it, in which case there is a default hypothesis, which may be unfalsifiable by other means.
An extreme example is the Michealson-Morley experiment. The hypothesis was the velocity of light would be measurably affected by the existence of "aether", a "Fifth element" which was believed to be needed for the propagation of light waves.
"Aether" had originally been hypothesized as a separate element from which all celestial objects were composed, and which filed all space, since "vacuum" had not been observed and was believed to be impossible.
After Galileo, Newton, and meteors, all that was left for "aether" to do was fill space and propagate light. By proving (unexpectedly) that"aether" did not have the last effect predicted, "aether" lost its validity. If propagation had been shown, however, it would have constituted the first experimental proof of the existence of "Aether".
Unfalsiafiabilty is a hard concept to grok in the gut. The best I can do is "don't believe anything that could not conceivably be proven wrong, unless believing it works better than not believing it."
For example, I don't believe in the non-existence of aliens, because there could be (experiential) evidence I would accept that they exist, even tho no evidence would justify saying they do not anywhere, only in particular instances. ("That was no UFO, that was me!" "This 'alien artifact' says "made in China.'")
I don't believe in the Big Bang, because I consider it unfalsifiable. I consider the infinite universe to be equaly unfalsifiable, but it makes more sense to me, so, applying Occam's razor, I pick existence over the "vacuum" of non-existence.
A more complicated version. I have no compelling experimental evidence that my concept of "god" has anything to do with anything outside my own head, but currently, it works for me to believe he likes me.
Do I need to take my meds?