So I don't think anyone has been able to show a logical incompatibility between God and harm. In fact, we can actually prove that these are logically consistent by adding a third premise, namely, that God has a morally sufficient reason to permit harm . 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.