But “in existence” does not mean in a particlar place, or in an unspecified place; it just means having a particular quality or characteristic, viz, the quality of existing.
Your original question (“If God is a being then he would first need a place in which to exist. Who or what created that?”) assumes that all things which exist do so in a particular place, which in turn assumes ( think) that all existing things are material and are limited by the characteristics of materiality. But there is no evidence that this is so, and no reason - other, ironically, than faith - to make this assumption.
According to that fount of all spiritual knowledge, “Father Ted”, the best answer to any tricky theological question is “That would be an ecumenical matter”*
I can see now that my description was off, but the vibe was right.
Any attempt to point out logical inconsistencies was immediately branded as sophistry. I believe the reasoning was it’s automatically disingenuous to use logic to refute that which you should know is beyond logic.
My resident theologian is appalled at your nuns’ misuse of the arcana of religious terminology. But not surprised; nuns be evil in groups. Whatever your arguments were, sophistry they (probably) weren’t.
Glad that we could collectively get to the bottom of your question.
I’d be inclined to quote prominent philosopher Inigo Montoya on this, tbh. (Not necessarily blaming you; you’re just conveying the misuse of a specific word by another.)
Sophistry is simply using unsound but plausible- and clever-sounding arguments. Calling fact-based arguments sophistic begs the question significantly, and would actually be applicable to any counter-argument to their blindly-held position.
If that’s sophistry, so is 90% of GD and 85% of IMHO on this board.
“Sophistry” is not supposed to be a one-word condensation of “you’re wrong because STFU”. If your correspondent was using it that way, that’s to their fault, and not to any reasonable definition of the word.