[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Micah] 
 > Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans. 

 [Case] 
> You are advocating some weird brand of solipsism. 
 
[Craig previously] 
> 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 

[Case] 
> Actually with solipsism only number three is needed.

Yes, if you're just CALLING someone a solipsist, nothing but 3) is needed.  But your claim was that 3) followed from Micah's 1).  So I ask: where's your argument, if it is not 1) - 3)?
  
[Case]
> 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.

Now you've really stepped in it.  Originally you presented a reductio argument:
a) if 1) then 3)
 b) 3) is false (because solipsism is false)
c) :. 1) is false

Now you're stuck with:
a) 1) leads to 3)
b) 1) is a tautology
c) :. 3) is true (solipsism is true)

Craig