For all the lambasting of the mainstream media, it's almost an unwritten rule that until an issue is raised in that media vocal advocates on any side simply will not talk about it. I first raised the following issue in 2006.
If an argument for a claim about the ontological status of certain objects is made, the question is how to arbitrate that ontology without self-exempting both the criteria and the premises based on that criteria. If they are self-exempting, the same question arises about them. If they're not self-exempting, then their own authority to arbitrate ontology is merely question-begging as long as the issue is not even being addressed.
Not sure why theists, as well as atheists, continue to ignore this issue. Philosophers and apologists are remiss in posturing about logicality and yet maintaining mutual silence about this. It's like a secret agreement to just collectively whistle past the epistemic graveyard. I can guarantee that these questions will only loom larger as they continue to be ignored.