Like so, so many arguments in philosophy of mind, the argument requires there to be a distinction between subject and object. Without this distinction, the arg

Like so, so many arguments in philosophy of mind, the argument requires there to be a distinction between subject and object. Without this distinction, the argument is not disproven, but its semantics completely break down; i.e., not "Without this presupposition, Dawkins is false when he says X" but rather "Without this presupposition, Dawkins has said nothing at all when he says X; he may have said 'blippity bloo blah bleem bam' instead." Without a strongly reasoned argument for subject-object distinction, one may as well be proving things with the presupposition that God exists.