What would be tested in this context is the explanation, not the anecdotal evidence itself.

Are you saying the only thing that can be tested is, "why they saw or know god"? If someone claims they saw or know god, and the reliability of their testimony can not be tested, then their testimony is only a claim with "no weight"(no reliability or corroboration)

if someone gave testimony that they, or someone else, knows or saw god, as supporting information for the claim "a god exists", first what should be recorded is a detailed report of the encounter, what can be tested is the reliability of the witness(studying the brain of person for consistency of what they saw or know, studying their memory, studying their eyes for reliability for reliability of how they see). Once the person's reliability can be ruled out, then we have to confirm, did they see or know what they actually claim. Then we can start to Studying comparisons of corroborating testimony for consistency.

I highly doubt that the god hypothesis could be tested in any significant way scientifically, although I wouldn't assert that it is impossible in principle to do so.

If we continue to try to find a way to test they claim that a god exists, and through time there continues to be no evidence throught testing, then as time progresses, there is no weight to the claim "a god exists", until there is evidence through tests, until there is evidence through a test.

In any case, an explanation which might only be supported by anecdotes, while not entirely baseless, would be extremely weak relative to other explanations which are open to this wider scientific analysis. That's fine.

If the anecdotal information provided as support for a claim is "personal testimony", if the personal testimony can't be tested for reliability and accuracy, then the personal testimony has no weight.

All the same, anecdotal evidence is still evidence, even if weak. If you've ever give any weight whatsoever to any testimony or anecdote told to you by any person ever, then you agree with this point in your behavior. Also, it's called "anecdotal evidence" for a reason...

Wouldn't we first give weight to a personal testimony after it can be tested for reliability and accuracy? If personal testimony cannot be tested for reliability and accuracy then it has no weight as evidence.