Solipsistic approach

Thanks Rabbi,
Indeed, what I thought was determined only by each and every one's intuition.

A] I would be happy if the Rabbi would write arguments on the matter (even at the beginning of chapters) although they can always be refuted. Because most of the arguments I have seen on the Internet are quite weak.

B] Regarding the part that does not concern God. Solipsism is usually presented as a ‘theological view’ of God in the context of the anthropological view.
Whoever recognizes the existence of external things outside of the ’I’ must see the existence of God as something that is more certain than all other things.
Z”A The argument in favor of the existence of external things to his knowledge must be of the form: I have a feeling/intuition of a table and a chair, and this thought is not the fruit of my imagination or dream.

So what is true about the table and the chair is that it is true about the concept of God.
Because it is an infinite object and is much more difficult to “create” than any other thought.

(Or that this is brought as evidence for the reality of the Creator through naive faith, just as the understanding that this world is only in my mind – is too narrow an understanding, so is the understanding that this world is random … is too narrow an understanding, even though both are true)

C] I understood that you have a book that deals with intuition and its importance, right? That is, without the ‘natural’commensation; philosophy is liable to mislead us in a big way (the solipsistic approach is the doge’).

I have already written that I have nothing to write about this. And anyone who writes something about this is presumed to be writing nonsense. The basic argument is that maybe everything is an illusion (because we have illusions) and the counterargument is that not everything is an illusion (intuition). That's all.
The proof for the existence or non-existence of God is baseless. There are people who have an intuition that the chair exists and have no intuition about God, or that it is stronger than that, and so on. All of these are just empty words.
I have written books about intuition (mainly Two Carts and Truth and Unstable). You will not find arguments there against solipsism (because it is not necessary and impossible).

Even those who have no intuition about God know what they are talking about…
After all, a debate between an atheist and a believer is not a mere argument.
Rather, one claims that a defined entity exists and the other disbelieves in it.

And so they defined the concept of God anyway. And it is such a big concept that it has to come to them from the outside, right?

Mattathias, you're mixing things up here. Now you've brought in the anthropological evidence. There's more evidence for the existence of God. But what does all this have to do with solipsism?

That the moment a person accepts his external world, then he deserves to accept God. That his understanding is much more complex than anything his mind can produce and deceive his soul.

And the connection is found in the response you wrote:
“The proof of the existence or non-existence of God is baseless. Some people have an intuition that the chair exists and have no intuition about God, or that it is stronger than that, and so on. All of these are just empty lies.”

A person who denies the existence of God understands what he is talking about (for example: There is a great one who created the world). But this does not mean that he has an intuition that such a thing exists, and it does not necessarily have to come to him from some external source. The believer claims that such a thing exists and the atheist disagrees. It is possible to deny the existence of demons and monsters when one understands what is being discussed and does not conclude that they exist.
See the first volume for a discussion of the ontological view.

Because for them we have a way to explain their creation – the mind is a combination of the two.
But we don't always claim this, of course, regarding the concept of God.

PS Does the Rabbi believe in the existence of ideas as real beings?

I don't understand. Are you talking about demons? How was this concept created if not by external influence? A synthesis of other concepts? So the concept of God can also be created this way. What's the problem with creating the concept "There is an omnipotent being who created the world". And that our brain can't synthesize such a concept? I don't see this as a real problem.

I tend to think so, but I'm not sure.