Currently all "descriptions" aren't really descriptions. They're words strung together in a hopefully grammatically correct arrangement, but they don't ever describe anything. I think a real description should be precise enough that someone reading it can know just what the author is saying, so that several people who read it can form the same impression and draw the same conclusions. They may not agree, but at least they all share the same understanding.
If it cannot be sensed, not even in theory, then what can you possibly be describing? Even electrons, quarks, gluons can be sensed. Look at something very subjective like wine tasting or art appreciation: you can still talk about the "length" of the wine, or the artists use of lines and colour to emphasize their subject. These are fuzzy and somewhat subjective, but we can still communicate!
Compare this to any description of "god". We're told God has a plan, but we're told that we cannot know what this plan is. So in what sense does God have a plan? We're told that we have a soul which is independent of our body but directs our decisions, but we can affect all aspects of our personality and our judgement by changing our body so in what sense does the soul direct anything?
These descriptions look like they have meaning, but when pressed, they're empty, meaningless blather. They communicate nothing, they mean nothing. Even will-o-the-wisps cast some faint light for us to follow, but theological descriptions of god don't give us anything.
When "god loves us" is consistent with all observations, no matter how cruel and unloving, then it loses all meaning. I might as well say that Angelina Jolie loves me, or that earthquakes love humans. That's why unfalsifiable claims are also meaningless claims