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

My opponent should now inform us how he is measuring these probability equations, wherein he can blithely denounce alternative interpretations as “improbable.” Certainly the 56 million reformed Christians would like to know why their logically interwoven theory of Christian theology has been seriously considered and found wanting of probability.The five propositions are not true or important (i) The scriptural passages to which we are referred mayhap have not actually have been read by my opponent. Nowhere do these passages refer to God creating space, time, and matter literally out of nothing at all. Indeed, they refer to creating the “heavens” and the “earth” and other such celestial bodies. It’s not clear why this doctrine is somehow MORE vital to Christianity than the doctrine of God’s timelessness. He’ll have to give us the probability of each doctrine respectively so that we can determine why trading one doctrine for the other results in a shift of probability. (ii) Under a B-theory of time, if I swat a fly and kill it, it would have always been the case that I swatted that fly and killed it, inasmuch as the moment where I killed the fly is as real as all past and future moments (like staring at a timeline where all moments are documented). It does not follow that I therefore never killed the fly—that is literally absurd. We know as a matter of science that our universe came into existence, it only follows from a B-theory of time that the universe coming into existence is as objectively real as all moments in time. Thus, in many ways, a Christian could say that there is never a moment where God is not creator of the universe… This does not seem to weaken Christianity. I think it’s the LOGIC of a B-theory of time that is confusing my opponent. Just because there was never a time when the universe was not, does not mean it was not created. That’s like saying that just because there was never a time that I was not born I must have never been born! In fact, according to a tenseless theory of time, we must hold both to be true simultaneously! I am both not born and I am born forever and always. (iii) Perhaps my opponent is unaware of Romans 9 or our early Christian forbear, Augustine. Nevertheless, his view on this point is perhaps just a failure of perspective. Free will is very much possible insofar as one remembers that the only thing that you must do necessarily in the present is that which you have already done. Just because there was NEVER a time that any action you do was not done, does not mean that the action was not done freely. The question begged is: is the action performed because there is never a time when it was not? or is there never a time when it was not because the action was performed? A slight difference with large implications. If there is a contradiction, there is some hidden premise we need. (iv) This is false given the Christian proclamation of God as Trinity. God is both timeless and personal, wherein he participates in the timeline through Jesus and his Spirit. This may be what Peter was TRYING to get at using tensed language (because that’s all we have) when he said, “[to God] a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” (Wrong given an A-theory of time.) (v) My opponent speaks with tensed language even about the B-theory of time; it is simply how language works. Evil is never overcome because its duration on the timeline is just as ontologically real as the duration on the timeline where evil is overcome. This means that BOTH are true, that evil is both always overcome and is NEVER overcome, insofar as there was never a time when either was not! He just simply has trouble with the B-theory proper. My point is human beings, who experience reality in tenses, will experience evil as overcome! That’s probably what God cares about. There is NOWHERE in the Bible or in Christian doctrine that says that evil must be overcome in the way that my opponent thinks it needs to be.