Circular reasoning?

A few things I've been pondering about the argument against God in Theodicy...

First it seems the arguments for Theodicy are CIRCULAR!
The underlying assumptions of Theodicy seem to assume NO GOD... which is unfair to the theist, and since as Hume (an atheist) implores we must start on even ground. (Though I think the atheist can only ever get false even ground, as I know the "hypothesis" of God is in fact so true that everything depends upon Him.)

The Theodicy arguments that I've seen so far consider evil as something akin to "pain and suffering". The nature of pain and suffering seems to cause the assumption that there is no God. Pain and suffering are generally considered as opposing Happiness and Comfort, they are not the opposite of God. In fact, it seems that if Pain and Suffering are "Evil" then the argument seems to imply utilitarian assumptions which include the non-existence of God. In the assumption of Happiness and Comfort as Good, it seems intrinsically to place only physical/emotional things into the equation, and denying the possibility of a Spiritual “Good” which includes God. Thus either the atheist is creating a Straw man argument between God and Evil, by devolving the argument into “moral and natural” good versus “moral and natural” evil, or if not, and they state in some way that they assume a God, then they are creating a False Dichotomy between Good and Evil, though this seems a unique False Dichotomy, by instead of failing to including the middle terms, it includes the middle terms at the failure to include the proper opposites or Dichotomy.

It seems that for the Atheist and the Theist to be on the “same ground” one must admit the possibility of God… though this possibility would by necessity be abstract and variable enough to be able to both include and exclude the possibility of God. The seeming best formation of a proper dichotomy would be “Good” and “not-Good” as they are explicitly contradictory and mutually exhaustive. And as a well formed Christian theist would deny the equality of God and evil, the best formulation of the dichotomy does not reduce not-Good to “evil”, but instead to “the privation or deprivation of Good”. This permits the atheist a place for his pain and suffering versus happiness and comfort, as well as permitting the theist a place for his God versus the privation of God, premise.