[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Case]

[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.

[Craig]
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

[Case]
I've stepped in it? This was your trail of droppings not mine. I believe I
called your "easy as 1, 2, 3" formulation whopper jawed. But Micah's
statement is a tautology in its own right.

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

[Case]
I'm stuck with it? As it gets piled deeper I may be stuck in it. But just
out of curiosity are you defending Micah here or is there a point of your
own you would like to make? Because if there is a point of your own in here
some place maybe you could start over and we could discuss it.