This is a very interesting perspective, but it also eludes to the fact that you can put logical limits on an omnipotent God. It is important to believe that nothing is impossible for God, logical or otherwise. However, logically, just because God can do something, doesn't necessarily mean he will ever choose to do it, especially if it is illogical.
I disagree that it makes sense or is desirable to say that God can do logically impossible things. My position is the orthodox position within Christianity. Theologians have always claimed, when faced with this dilemma, that God's omnipotence is to be understood in terms of doing all that is logically possible (not logically impossible). I think you would be surprised to find that the majority of contemporary theologians still agree with this. I'm not trying to say that it is therefore the RIGHT position. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to say that my position isn't unusual or all that unique. Although a lot of Christians seem to think it is since the invasion of postmodernism.
But if you think it makes sense or is desirable to say that God can do logically impossible things, then let me ask you this: Can God lie? Can God say "I promise to save you if you trust in Jesus" and then go back on his promise and say send you to hell instead?
Is this something God is even capable of? In fact, this is how most Muslim theologians define God's omnipotence. They say that no one can be sure that they will go to heaven, because God can do whatever he wants, even contradict himself or lie.
Personally, I don't find this to be true of the Christian God and I'm not sure what a Christian would have to gain by affirming such incoherence.
Or, if that won't work, consider this. Can God send you to Hell but also send you to Heaven? So when you die you spend an eternity in both Heaven and Hell? Or can God be God and not-God at the same time and in the same sense?
If you want to "bite the bullet" so to speak and say "Yes" to these questions, then I would simply say you're being incoherent and I don't think God is incoherent and I don't think it is any advantage to God to say he is or can be incoherent.
That being said, the main arguement is, if God can prevent evil, why doesn't He care enough to do so?
By asking this question, you take all responsibility for the actions of humanity away from them, and place the responsibility of protection on God. Is God truly responsible for protecting them against themselves? Yes, there are innocent people who get hurt every day, and who do not deserve the pain they have to endure, but that pain is a result of the choices of mankind, and God is not required to stop mankind from proceeding as they have chosen.
I hate to play devil's advocate, but I don't think this will work. The atheist would point out that God is described as a heavenly Father, and it would seem to be the job of a Father to protect their children from harm. But even if we want to reject the idea of God as the Father of all mankind (the NT does reserve the term uniquely for those who are in Christ), the atheist could still point out that love, in general, would protect another person from harm.
For example, if I see my best friend's kid playing in the street as a car is about to run him over, it would seem to be unloving to say "Well, it was his choice to play in the street." Even if the kid is a complete stranger, it doesn't seem very loving to let the kid get run over. And God loves everyone, right? Well, even if we want to deny that God loves everyone, which I doubt we do, the atheist could still make his point on a weaker claim: that God is perfectly good. But letting a kid get run over in the street doesn't seem to be a perfectly good thing to do.
Take your eyes off the innocent little girl and her parents, and zoom out to mankind as a whole, and see how we are responsible as a "human race" for the state of the world today. As much as I am sure it pains Him to see innocent people suffer, He will not choose to intervene in every case of injustice, because what we see as injustice is merely the result of mankind's seperation from God and resulting sin.
The atheist might point out that he doesn't need all of the human race to make his point. He only needs the little girl. If there is one little girl that is suffering in a manner that we, as imperfect and bad humans, would prevent from suffering if we could, it would seem that God should do the same, all things being equal.
I don't mean to pick apart your argument. I agree with the rest of what you say and think it is good. I just want to be careful that we don't promote arguments that won't work, or else we'll find ourselves not being able to answer a real atheist when a real atheist asks this question (and they do ask this question, a lot).
