The earlier version argued that the propositions God exists and Harm exists are logically incompatible. In order to show this, Dr. Washington had to show that certain premisses were necessarily true. So now he turns to arguing instead that the propositions God exists and Gratuitous harm exists are logically incompatible. Therefore, God does not exist. If God exists, gratuitous harm does not exist.
Gratuitous harm does exist.
Therefore, God does not exist. The first version of the argument from harm posed an essentially internal problem about the consistency of Christian theism, since the Christian is committed by his own theology to the truth of the propositions God exists and Harm exists. Dr. Washington says God could have reduced his suffering. I argue in this rebuttal that we're just not in a position to assert with any measure of confidence that apparently gratuitous harm really is gratuitous, and I give several reasons for our lack of confidence in this regard. Dr. Washington never shoulders the burden of proof to demonstrate that the harm in the world really is gratuitous, but, as we shall see, he shifts ground to yet a third argument in his next rebuttal.