I don’t think this is right! If we are conceiving of god as an unlimited mind, then obviously all of the evidence against him will take the form of some kind of limitation. This is a basically definitional outcome. We can lump all of this evidence - human and animal suffering, divine hiddenness, human ignorance and irrationality, animal ignorance and irrationality, human viciousness and malice, the absence of logically possible better things, the existence of false idols, any lack anywhere of harmony or explainability in the world, any degree of unreliability in our conscious faculties, etc. - under the bin of “evil.” And if we lump it all together, we can technically call it “just one” mystery, but it is nonetheless a massive and multifaceted body of evidence! And for each thing we lump into our big Problem of Limitations, the theodicy we have to cook up for our unlimited mind becomes more and more convoluted, and less and less simple - and consequently, “theism plus X theodicy” gets a lower and lower prior probability.

It’d be as if I said there is an overwhelming body of evidence for a fundamentally mathematical universe, which explains so much about the world, and I only have a single pesky issue to address, the “problem of non-mathematical-ness,” while the “matheists” have dozens!