Rowe suggests his “evidential” argument can only show God “probably” exists because “for all we know there is some good outweighing the fawn’s suffering to which that suffering is connected in a way...

Rowe suggests his “evidential” argument can only show God “probably” exists because “for all we know there is some good outweighing the fawn’s suffering to which that suffering is connected in a way we do not see.” What does he mean? Give an example of how there might be a good that requires the fawn’s suffering and outweighs the fawn’s suffering? In other words, suggest some greater good that God could achieve only by allowing the fawn’s suffering.