Solipsism is entailed by logical extension of Idealism

A) Epistemological necessity of solipsism in mental reality I accept premise 3 and 4, but I reject premise 1, which leads me to reject premise 2. I know that other minds exist because they express properties that my mind also expresses which would show me that they are in fact a mind. Moreover, they make distinct choices that are separate from how I identify myself. For example, God is considered an objectively morally perfect being and thus has moral authority to issue commands upon humans. This means that anything contrary to God’s nature is a sin including anybody who disobeys him. In Genesis, God told Adam and Eve that they can eat from any tree within the Garden of Eden except the tree of knowledge. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge instead of the many others, they made a distinct choice that was contrary to God’s nature. Thus, an external mechanism is not necessary to decipher whether there are other minds because abstract objects created in my mind don’t have free-will in the same way concrete objects would not have free-will in materialism. B) Modal argument against Idealism without Solipsism I don’t understand what Pro means by “ Idealism is instantiated”so I can’t fully say whether I accept it. I will accept it anyways along with premise 2 for the sake of further discussion. I also accept premise 4, but I reject premise 3, which I am assuming its referring to God.. God is a discrete entity only and NOT a property of my mind because God is considered to be a necessary mind that exists in all possible worlds and represents objective reality. Otherwise, To suggest that X is conceptual therefore the thing that X is based upon is conceptual would be a fallacy of composition. For instance, conceptual applications of the mind are contingent upon my mind and God is conceptual. However, the concept itself is pointing to something that is supposed to be objective and mental, which would be God. Therefore, Pro’s argument would not hold up or apply to God; Instead, the argument would only work if this was a physical object or another human mind in question. If Pro was referring to P as another human mind, then the argument is no different from the previous one. My argument for Idealism minus Solipsism It is important to point out that there are several different interpretations of idealism and I suspect that some of them would inescapably lead to solispism, such as what Pro has suggested in his arguments. Nevertheless, Idealism encompasses more than just minds and their subjective ideas. As Pro briefly discussed, it includes an objective mind (i.e. God), but it also entails objective ideas, which will be my main point of contention against solipsism. The logical absolutes, such as the law ofidentity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle,are considered to be necessarily true in all possible worlds. More importantly, they are taken as laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions and more. As Descartes claimed himself that the very act of doubting one's own existence served, at least, as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity in this case the “self” for there to be a thought and, as a result, it cites the law of identity. However, this is obviously very problematic if solipsism is true. For instance, we know the laws of logic exist externally from our minds because we can’t think of a possible world where they could not exist in and be untrue.This is why they are considered absolute because no situation could arise which would cause us to reject these logical truths. On the other hand, I can envision a world where there are no minds except my own, which would force me to question whether other minds exist beside my own. Therefore, if only my mind and the subjective ideas I create within my mind exists according to solipsism, then how can the very laws that have to underlie my thinking “self” exist outside my mind as well. Premise 1: The laws of logic provide the basis of my thoughts Premise 2: I can think of a situation where only my mind exists Premise 3: I cannot think of a situation where the logical absolutes do not exist Conclusion: The laws of logic are external and objective entities. On this basis alone, we can conclude that idealism does not lead to solipsism or that solipsism is false without even invoking God. With that said, I will be showcasing additional arguments using God but it will have to be in the next round in order to stay consistent with the required format.