As long as that proposition is even possible , it shows that harm and God are logically compatible with each other. So Dr. Washington would have to show that it is logically impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting harm, and I'm very skeptical that he can do that. This argument, I think, is just logically fallacious. Abstract objects are timeless. Therefore, God is an abstract object.
Cats are mammals.
Therefore, dogs are cats. It's just logically fallacious to reason that way. God can be timeless because He does not change. If, as I argued in my first speech, the cause of the universe is changeless, then He would be timeless. But that doesn't mean He's an abstract object.