[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Case]

[Craig]
What is the argument for this claim? E.g.,:
1) Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans
2) No other humans can be shown to exist independent of me
3) :. Nothing can be shown to exist independent of me

Even if 1) - 3) is a valid argument; 2) does not follow from 1).


[Case]
I think you have the order all whopper jawed. Actually with solipsism only
number three is needed. Nothing can be shown to exist independent of me.

If I am going to take an extremely skeptical position on the existence of
anything outside of my own experience then other humans are merely objects
in the world no different in kind that anything else.

On what basis would I grant the existence of other humans but nothing else?

Micah's statement, "Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans," is
perhaps a tautology since the showing of existence requires someone to show
it to. In the absence of a seer it can't be seen. Does this mean it isn't
there?