If the B-Theory of time is true, then Christianity is implausible

Believe it or not, justification is needed to determine even basic probability, whereby you use rules of induction or basic probability metrics. To justify the sun probably rising, you would be inferring background knowledge. The equation that you're using, but apparently don't know that you are, is, P(SR|k) >> P(SNR|k), where SR is the sun rising and SNR is the sun not rising and K indicates background knowledge. I have frankly not seen even a modicum of an attempt to establish probability even on this most rudimentary level.(i) I'll simply call ipse dixit, inasmuch as my opponent has asserted something as true and hoped to God (or not) that we would take it as such. I have spent my many years in the field of theology and have no idea how he could have POSSIBLY come to the conclusion that the majority of theologians take his cited passages as some sort of proof for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. He has not responded to the call to determine why swapping one traditional church doctrine with another somehow results in a shift in probability. The Bible never says anything whatever about God creating out of nothing and therefore no Christian need believe it.(ii) I did not concede the point. I only concede that Pro doesn't quite understand the implications of the theory we are assuming. All moments in the timeline exist really with each other objectively. However, Mctaggart, the forerunner on the philosophy of time, said that events can, under a B-theory of time, be thought of as earlier than, simultaneous with, or later than others, though each moment is equally real. Thus, God is earlier than the heavens and the earth and brought it about. However, since the "future" is equally real with the "past," there was never a real moment when the heavens and earth was not. But my opponent misses the other implication, since the "past" is as equally real as the "future," there will always be a real moment when the universe was not. It is like looking at a timeline and seeing a moment when someone is alive and then another moment where that same someone is dead. Taking the timeline as a whole, the person being alive and dead are both equally true and real objectively. If my opponent does not like this, it has no implications on Christianity, only on the fact that he does not like the axiom he has asked us to assume.(iii) This is two pronged. I deny that free will or determinism in any way affects the probability of Christianity. I cite Romans 9 and the doctrine of predestination and the long Christian history of those who follow Calvin and Augustine. I also deny his definition of free will. I refer to Frankfurt"s famous objection that showed free will is perfectly compatible with necessity. [1](iv) My opponent is not familiar with the Trinity. This we can forgive him, it is complicated after all. God can, of course, be both timeless and temporal, because God is tripersonal, inasmuch as he is composed of three persons, two of which are free to have temporal locations. On this point, Craig should really know better, especially since he is a Social Trinitarian. In fact, the Bible teaches as much. Peter tells us that time looks different to God (2 Peter 3:8) yet we also see the person of Jesus participating with us.(v) Not to be too blunt, but I really do think my opponent is unfamiliar with the B-theory of time. Things in time have a relationship to one another, like before, after or simultaneous with, but each thing in time is equally real. Thus, before evil, there was no evil and after evil there is no evil! That is true on a B-theory of time. But the moments where evil is in existence are equally real with the moments that it is not. Thus it is true on the timeline of a B-theory that evil both does and does not exist objectively. If he thinks it's a contradiction, then he has assumed a contradictory axiom and it no more makes Christianity implausible then it does the existence of funerals.1.http://tinyurl.com...