This is completely incoherent.

Matter doesn't even exists. Only energy and fundamental forces, as far as we know.

I think it is possible, logically at least, to have gods, free will and souls even if everything were physical matter, unless you define those terms specifically to be metaphysical but then its like a True Scotsman fallacy.

Physicalism might be the most viable, but that does not mean its viable enough. There are huge holes - we have no explanation for consciousness, sentience, free will, physics still doesn't explain everything physical, and quantum mechanics is such a weird aberration of physical matter I am tempted to not call it that.

However, nothing beats the scientific method for truth finding at the moment. And, at the moment, the scientific method is content with only giving us physical results.

"Has anyone found a viable alternative to falsifiable hypotheses?"

that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists

If it has no basis in physical reality, how would you detect, measure or quantify it? On what basis would you prove its existence?

Assuming that the universe actually exists outside ourselves and that our perceptions can be explained by some set of rules (that we call "physics") seem like necessary axioms to get anywhere in science. You could reject those assumptions, but then I don't see much of a compelling reason to accept anything beyond solipsism if you don't believe in reality.

That said, I'm not sure that physics will ever be able to provide a good, complete explanation of qualia.

“Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”

Observed particles behave different.

Basically, there's a little wiggle room left in our current model of the universe, but not much, and absolutely nothing close to human-scale. Dualism is nowhere to be found - we can observe the mind breaking or operating physically - and Idealism better be indistinguishable from materialism to work.

I hear that “Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism” as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.

Yep. The grain of truth here is that materials at really small scale look quite different. At small scale, and in a specific, rigorously defined way. I don't want your crystals or dog THC, Karen.

Not sure what you are talking about. Science isn’t philosophy or religion, you can’t make choices what’s true or isn’t. A fact is a fact.

So the thing is, like other commenters have said, you're asking metaphysics things through the prism of science, which does not work because by nature, science uses the (mostly) objective scientific method, while metaphysics is based on subjective assessments.

You have to separate the physical, material universe as being in the domain of what can be known, from the rest, which can not be, and never will. This does not mean it doesn't exist, just that it can never be studied or proved in any way, so anyone can believe what they wish about it without leaving rationality (as long as the belief does not imply things concerning the material universe)