It seems to me that you haven’t read the book.
First, as far as I can see, Loke doesn’t give rigorous numerical estimates for the probabilities of each naturalistic hypotheses, only that they are “negligible”. I don’t know if Loke’s arguments against each of the naturalistic hypotheses are more convincing than other works that have already been published. You have to read it for yourself.
Personally, I am unconvinced that there is a rigorous way of assigning numerical probabilities to historical events (contra to what people like Vincent Torley, Richard Carrier, and the McGrews have done in their works). I have in fact argued in previous threads that the margins of error are often too large to say anything meaningful. At most you can confidently assign negligible probabilities to hypotheses that are clearly ridiculous. Applying this to Loke’s book, my takeaway is mainly that his logical framework helps to classify the naturalistic hypotheses systematically, even if in practice the probabilities attached to each can be very subjective.
Second, your point about supernatural hypotheses being incalculable doesn’t seem to contribute anything new to the discussion in this thread, because it does not engage with Loke’s arguments in section 8.3 nor even my comments about using other arguments for the truth of Christianity versus other religions.