How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?
Poorly, I'm afraid.
Summary
- The argument makes unsupported assumptions,
- including assuming the conclusion.
- It draws conclusions that do not actually follow from their premises.
- It makes contradictory claims.
- It relies on a fundamentally faulty probability analysis, which directly and fatally undermines the conclusion.
I note also that although it is ostensibly about unfalsifiable supernatural claims, nothing in the argument is specific to the supernatural. It covers "any claim extending beyond human perception of reality", which includes also conceptual claims and some natural ones. Among those is "people should not accept unfalsifiable supernatural claims," which is problematic in an argument for exactly that proposition. That is,
- If it were valid, it would be self-contradictory.
In detail
Human perception is solely naturalistic;
This is a significant unsupported assumption, but I will accept it for the sake of argument.
as such, empiricism and logic
generated by human perception and interpretation of reality is
strictly naturalistic as well.
By "empiricism", I take you to mean drawing inferences from our perceptions. That pairs well with forming arguments based on our perceptions, which I take as your "logic". Couched in these terms, yes, if one accepts that human perception is solely naturalistic then it follows trivially that inferences and arguments based only on such perceptions are also solely naturalistic.
However, I note that that is not a conventional definition of "logic," which is usually taken to have broader scope. I do not accept the conventional sense of "logic" to be solely naturalistic.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;
True, but not supportive of your position. More the opposite, in fact.
any claim extending
beyond human perception of reality can neither be proven nor
disproven.
False. Much of pure Mathematics would like to have a word with you.
But this is not essential to your argument, so let's move on.
As a result, a virtually infinite number of claims can be posited and
rendered undisprovable if the aforementioned claim’s object extends
beyond human perception or physical reality.
I am prepared to accept that there is an actually infinite number of claims about reality that could be posited. Following Gödel, I am prepared to accept that an actually infinite subset of them is neither provable nor refutable. However, per Gödel, being neither provable nor refutable is not inherently correlated with the truth of such claims. They can be true, false, or undecidable.
This obviates all the preceding points about human perception.
Of those virtually infinite number of claims, a virtually infinite
number necessarily contradict each other.
I take you to be arguing that for any such claim X, you can construct a large set of mutually irreconcilable claims containing X. Unfortunately, that does not follow merely from there being very many, even infinitely many, claims that could be posited. I am prepared to accept it as true, however, at least for the sake of argument.
Every belief or rationale is limited to that proponent’s own human
perception, which is being used to justify a claim extending beyond
that.
Not so fast. You are assuming the conclusion here, or close to it. Who says that all my beliefs are or have to be justified by my perceptions, or by anything else for that matter? How do you substantiate that claim? In particular, how is it justified by your perceptions, as it must be for internal consistency?
As a result, the likelihood of each individual claim being more
probable than the other is impossible to assess.
No, that does not follow. There may be no standard for making such assessments, but that rarely stops anyone from assessing anyway.
Perhaps you mean that such assessments are not justified. I don't think I accept that in its full generality. At minimum, it needs more support.
Therefore, the likelihood of any particular claim being actual is
practically zero
No, you have contradicted yourself. "The likelihood [...] is practically zero" is an assessment of the likelihood. You cannot have both that and "impossible to assess". Certainly the former does not follow from the latter.
But suppose we reject the "impossible to assess" claim, which is flawed anyway. I think you're arguing that given a vast set of mutually irreconcilable claims, the likelihood of each must be miniscule. This is true if the claims are all equally likely, give or take, but in no way is it justified to assume such equiprobability. It can absolutely be the case that a small subset of alternatives from such a set have non-trivial probability. In fact, there can be one or a small range with probability arbitrarily close to 1.
Belief against such claims is justifiable on the basis of their
minimal probability.
Argument from improbability is weak to begin with, but here you haven't even established the improbability.