Metaphysical idealism refuted

When we think of something outside of thought, we turn it into a thought. From this it follows according to the metaphysical idealist that it is impossible to think of something outside of thought, so that it is impossible that there is something outside of thought. But it is not impossible to think of something outside of thought. This reason for this is that the proposition [There might exist something outside of thought] is epistemically justified and thus meaningful for us. In fact, the logically stronger proposition [There exists something outside of thought] is also epistemically justified and thus meaningful for us. For we cannot else but believe that there exists something outside of thought. Indeed, it would be self-deceiving for anyone to maintain that there exists nothing outside of that person's thought. Both propositions though are not epistemically justified as propositions about how the world is in itself. For we cannot know anything about the absolute. Moreover, even if it would be impossible to think of something outside of thought, it does not follow that there is nothing outside of thought. For why should the world in itself be thinkable? Did the metaphysical idealist travel to the absolute to find out that the absolute is such that the unthinkable is impossible? Of course not. For again, we cannot know anything about the nature of the world as it is in itself. We remain for ever firmly within the realm of the 'for us'.