Failure of Relativism

[Atla]

All meanings and things are interdependent with the human conditions [i.e. relative] as opposed to Philosophical Realism.

If it not relative then we have independent reality, i.e.

In philosophical ontology, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

It is impossible to have absolute independence of reality when we [the subjects] are parts and parcel of reality, i.e. inevitably related and relative.

Relativism is not a failure, it is the only reality.

(disclaimer: I have nothing to do with Dontaskme and the Johndoe, they are lost cases)

Soo maybe I'm just misunderstanding it. But you seem to view reality as more "relative" than it actually is.

Yes, fundamentally anti-realism is correct, of course. We are parts and parcels of reality, "continuous with it", we aren't separable from the rest of reality. We are it. This is also pretty much hard proven by modern science.

But that doesn't mean that what's going in my head, and what's going on in a galaxy 30 billion light years away, are somehow relative in any meaningful sense of the word. Eastern philosophy in general went too subjective and got lost in it.

The Moon was "objectively" there before any human existed and could think about it. However, that Moon from the past and the present me are fundamentally non-separable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All meanings and things are interdependent with the human conditions [i.e. relative] as opposed to Philosophical Realism.

If it not relative then we have independent reality, i.e.

In philosophical ontology, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

It is impossible to have absolute independence of reality when we [the subjects] are parts and parcel of reality, i.e. inevitably related and relative.

Relativism is not a failure, it is the only reality.

(disclaimer: I have nothing to do with Dontaskme and the Johndoe, they are lost cases)

Soo maybe I'm just misunderstanding it. But you seem to view reality as more "relative" than it actually is.

Yes, fundamentally anti-realism is correct, of course. We are parts and parcels of reality, "continuous with it", we aren't separable from the rest of reality. We are it. This is also pretty much hard proven by modern science.

But that doesn't mean that what's going in my head, and what's going on in a galaxy 30 billion light years away, are somehow relative in any meaningful sense of the word. Eastern philosophy in general went too subjective and got lost in it.

Not ALL Eastern philosophies went too subjective. Note some went with the philosophical realists' extreme.
Buddhism is one exception which took the Middle-Way.

The Middle Way or Middle Path (Pali: Majjhimāpaṭipadā; Sanskrit: Madhyamāpratipad[1][a]; Tibetan: དབུ་མའི་ལམ།, THL: Umélam; Chinese: 中道; Vietnamese: Trung đạo; Thai: มัชฌิมาปฏิปทา) is the term that Gautama Buddha used to describe the character of the Noble Eightfold Path he discovered that leads to liberation.
-wiki

The Moon was "objectively" there before any human existed and could think about it. However, that Moon from the past and the present me are fundamentally non-separable.

From one perspective, the moon existed before there were human beings, thus in this sense, the existence of the moon is independent of humans. I can agree with this as one perspective of reality.
However I do not agree with the philosophical realists who insist this is the only acceptable perspective.

The ace card I used is,
the conclusion of the above has to be made by humans, thus whatever its conclusion it has to be relative to humans.

• ALL conclusions are made by humans
  "The moon existed before there were humans" is a conclusion.
  Therefore The moon existed before there were humans" is made by humans - thus relative.

Conclusion [judgment] in this case is not necessary only perception and syllogisms in the head solely but arrived at wholesomely taking all there is into account.

In another perspective we ask,

• is there a real moon per se other than conceptualized by humans?
  -the moon is merely a ball of rocks, earth and other physical materials,
  -these materials are merely clusters molecules - conceptualized by humans,
  -these molecules are bundles of atoms - conceptualized by humans,
  -these atoms comprised of electrons and protons -conceptualized by humans,
  -the reality of electrons are conditioned by humans via Wave Function Collapse,
  -these protons are comprised and quarks and ??? -conceptualized by humans,

So is there a real moon that is independent of the human conditions.

In addition the use of "before" is time-based which is also human-based.

The term 'exist' is another complex term which cannot stand by itself and need to be predicated with human concepts [not idea btw].
If 'exist' is predicated with an idea, it would be a transcendental illusion, e.g. God.

So there is no room for humans to be so sure to insist the 'moon' is absolutely independent of human conditions.

One critical issue to bring in to reconcile the controversy is psychological just as Hume implied 'Cause and Effect' is psychological from habits, customs and constant conjunction.

So, Relativism is not a failure, it is the only 'realistic' reality.

[Noax]

All meanings and things are interdependent with the human conditions [i.e. relative] as opposed to Philosophical Realism.

If it not relative then we have independent reality, i.e.

I consider myself to be a relativist, but certainly not in this way. Humans just seem to be a different arrangement of the same stuff as everything else, and thus not special. I consider anthropocetrism to be a significant mistake, to be thrown out with the geocentrism that went with it.

I'll reply to your subsequent post later.

(disclaimer: I have nothing to do with Dontaskme and the Johndoe, they are lost cases)

I hear you on this. Is why I've not replied until now, nor have even bothered to read the posts.

Soo maybe I'm just misunderstanding it. But you seem to view reality as more "relative" than it actually is.

I know that comment was not directed at me, but I am about as full down the relative line as you can get. Saying one views reality as more relative 'than it actually is' seems to be an assertion of a different premise. There is no way 'that it actually is' under relativism.

I consider it more of an offense to science to be able to affect the past than the offense of having a way that things actually are. Apparently there are no valid metaphysical interpretations that support both.

Yes, fundamentally anti-realism is correct, of course. We are parts and parcels of reality, "continuous with it", we aren't separable from the rest of reality. We are it. This is also pretty much hard proven by modern science.

Modern science assumes this, and the success of science since they made this assumption (compared to the lack of success before it) is testament to the likelihood of the truth of the assumption, but that isn't even close to a proof of any sorts. Anyway, I agree that we're not separate from it. I just think it biased to assert it like that.

The Moon was "objectively" there before any human existed and could think about it. However, that Moon from the past and the present me are fundamentally non-separable.

I would say otherwise. I would say it was there relative to me before any humans existed, but that is not 'objectively'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Moon was "objectively" there before any human existed and could think about it. However, that Moon from the past and the present me are fundamentally non-separable.

I would say otherwise. I would say it was there relative to me before any humans existed, but that is not 'objectively'.

Note 'objectivity' is fundamentally intersubjectivity, thus reducible to relativity.

[Noax]

The Moon was "objectively" there before any human existed and could think about it. However, that Moon from the past and the present me are fundamentally non-separable.

I don't find these fundamentally non-separable. Sure, the ancient moon exists to me, but I don't exist to it. It seems to be a one-way relationship of cause C (moon, a billion years ago) and effect E (me, now). That causal relationship means I have measured the billion-years-ago moon, and that makes it exist to me. It has not measured me, so I just plain don't exist to it. That asymmetrical relationship between two causally related events is the foundation upon which my view is based.

From one perspective, the moon existed before there were human beings, thus in this sense, the existence of the moon is independent of humans. I can agree with this as one perspective of reality.
However I do not agree with the philosophical realists who insist this is the only acceptable perspective.

Some philosophical realists don't insist on their position, just like I'm not insisting on mine. Yes, Alta's tone there is one of some level of certainty, but you do the same here:

So, Relativism is not a failure, it is the only 'realistic' reality.

Sounds pretty insisting.

The ace card I used is,
the conclusion of the above has to be made by humans, thus whatever its conclusion it has to be relative to humans.

• ALL conclusions are made by humans
  "The moon existed before there were humans" is a conclusion.
  Therefore The moon existed before there were humans" is made by humans - thus relative.

This is just a language game, not much of an ace. Most of your post proceeded along these lines. We're not talking about the conclusion or any abstraction, we're talking about the moon in itself. I tried to explain how it exists to us humans above without resorting to functions specific to humans. The ancient moon existed to the dinosaurs despite their inability to conclude that fact.

OK, but dinosaurs exist to humans. So posit some other creature that we've never seen but nevertheless evolved in a different (no-humans) world that is an alternate direct future of that same billion-years-ago moon that is real to us. This assumes a metaphysical interpretation that supports multiple worlds, real or not. That same moon is real to that creature despite the creature not being real to us nor the creature having the capability to conclude the past history of the lights in the sky. Us humans are not real to world with that creature any more than their world is real to us, but the same ancient moon is real to both of us.

Just trying to illustrate how humans are not special in this regard.

[Dontaskme]

Note 'objectivity' is fundamentally intersubjectivity, thus reducible to relativity.

Well yes, it's basically subject objectifying itself, in other words no thing thinging.

What is it exactly in this conculsion that is in relationship with itself?

What is it..in this beginingless endless universe aka reality that in is relationship?



.

[Eodnhoj7]

Relativism is an approximation of absolute truth and is fundamentally a deficiency in the unified nature of reality by observing it in parts which move through relation.

The statement you claim, where everything is "relative", is a constant statement as it cannot change...hence either relativity contradicts itself, it acts as a negative limit to the absolute (proving only the absolute exists) or both.

If the statement contradicts itself, we are left with the absolute.

If the statement is a negative limit, it can only be observed through absolute truths (such as the statement "everything is relative") as a negation of them. For example if I say "x" does not exist, this is a relative statement as "x" must "exist" if it is to be negated, but considering "x" must exist if it is being negated it must not exist in relation to "y" or "z".

Note my point in my above post,

"Relativism is the only reality " is a fundamental fact and so obvious, i.e.
whatever the X, it is relative to the human conditions and its environment [which is also relative to the human conditions].

There is no absolute thing that can exists independent of the human conditions.

So "man as measurer" is the constant? And if this is the case, then all "evil" is subject to the state of man, considering God is made up by man?

Note "Man is the measure of all things" by Protagorus;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

There is no ontological evil floating around independently for man to discover.
Yes, in that case 'evil' is subjected to the state of man.

This is the critical point that evil is man-made.
Because evil is man-made, evil can be man-prevented and eliminated by man.

How can evil be man-made when evil is an absence of good? Should man be eliminated?



The other claim is God is real and created Satan where only God can control but humans cannot control Satan so evil will be an eternal thing.

When the reality is God is an illusion manifested in man.
Thus when humans understand God is an illusion, then eternal evil is also an illusion. So man will be able to manage and eliminate man-made evil.

But if man is measurer, and God is the ultimate measurer, than man should be eliminated?

Another critical point is man cannot get rid of the idea of God without finding fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent unavoidable psychological crisis that generated the idea of the illusory God.

And what are the "fool proof alternatives"...or is this a statement of dogmatic faith?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Moon was "objectively" there before any human existed and could think about it. However, that Moon from the past and the present me are fundamentally non-separable.

I don't find these fundamentally non-separable. Sure, the ancient moon exists to me, but I don't exist to it. It seems to be a one-way relationship of cause C (moon, a billion years ago) and effect E (me, now). That causal relationship means I have measured the billion-years-ago moon, and that makes it exist to me. It has not measured me, so I just plain don't exist to it. That asymmetrical relationship between two causally related events is the foundation upon which my view is based.

From one perspective, the moon existed before there were human beings, thus in this sense, the existence of the moon is independent of humans. I can agree with this as one perspective of reality.
However I do not agree with the philosophical realists who insist this is the only acceptable perspective.

Some philosophical realists don't insist on their position, just like I'm not insisting on mine. Yes, Alta's tone there is one of some level of certainty, but you do the same here:

So, Relativism is not a failure, it is the only 'realistic' reality.

Sounds pretty insisting.

The ace card I used is,
the conclusion of the above has to be made by humans, thus whatever its conclusion it has to be relative to humans.

• ALL conclusions are made by humans
  "The moon existed before there were humans" is a conclusion.
  Therefore The moon existed before there were humans" is made by humans - thus relative.

This is just a language game, not much of an ace. Most of your post proceeded along these lines. We're not talking about the conclusion or any abstraction, we're talking about the moon in itself. I tried to explain how it exists to us humans above without resorting to functions specific to humans. The ancient moon existed to the dinosaurs despite their inability to conclude that fact.

OK, but dinosaurs exist to humans. So posit some other creature that we've never seen but nevertheless evolved in a different (no-humans) world that is an alternate direct future of that same billion-years-ago moon that is real to us. This assumes a metaphysical interpretation that supports multiple worlds, real or not. That same moon is real to that creature despite the creature not being real to us nor the creature having the capability to conclude the past history of the lights in the sky. Us humans are not real to world with that creature any more than their world is real to us, but the same ancient moon is real to both of us.

Just trying to illustrate how humans are not special in this regard.

If ancient moon exists to dinosaurs, then it is still relative, i.e. relative to dinosaurs and dinosaurs are relative to us.
Now are you so sure the dinosaurs are seeing the 'moon' exactly like humans?

Now what about the smallest virus, do you think they seen a 'moon'?
If we have some living thing the size of a molecule, it will only see molecules and never a round circular moon.

What about blind creatures or really blind bats?
Blind bats do not necessary see 'fruits' like we do but merely pieces of 'materials' they need to survive.

I do agree within certain framework and system that we must use, the moon definitely existed before humans, thus infer independence. but then that certain framework and system has to fall back to the human conditions, i.e. subjective and relative.

Note for example Science - the most reliable objective knowledge of reality - has to assume reality is independent of human condition within its framework and system. As far Science is concern, humans are more interested in its utility than its assumption.

You need to consider and reflect on the reason [most possible] why you are so insistent there is something that is absolutely independent of the human condition, is actually psychological due to an embedded evolved 4 billion years old instinct.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no ontological evil floating around independently for man to discover.
Yes, in that case 'evil' is subjected to the state of man.

This is the critical point that evil is man-made.
Because evil is man-made, evil can be man-prevented and eliminated by man.

How can evil be man-made when evil is an absence of good? Should man be eliminated?

I have defined 'evil' in terms of evil acts like genocides, mass rapes, murders, etc.
These evil acts are [hu]man-made.
Human acts are controlled mainly in the brain.
Therefore we should understand the brain more precisely so we can take preventive actions to ensure humans do not commit evil acts [either eliminate or kept to the optimal minimum].

But if man is measurer, and God is the ultimate measurer, than man should be eliminated?

Prove God is possible before you talk about God involvement with man.

Another critical point is man cannot get rid of the idea of God without finding fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent unavoidable psychological crisis that generated the idea of the illusory God.

And what are the "fool proof alternatives"...or is this a statement of dogmatic faith?

One fool proof [near 90%] alternative is the religion of non-theistic Buddhism which do not has any elements of evil in its main religious texts. The other is Jainism and the likes.
90% fool proof is not enough since religious based Buddhism and Jainism has its religious cons and negatives.
So humanity must strive to find alternatives that are 95-99% fool proofs and this is very possible in the future given the current steep trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. [you have to keep up with this].

[Noax]

If ancient moon exists to dinosaurs, then it is still relative, i.e. relative to dinosaurs and dinosaurs are relative to us.

Yes to all. By ancient moon, I mean the one of a billion years ago, just to pick something specific.

Now are you so sure the dinosaurs are seeing the 'moon' exactly like humans?

No, each of us sees a moon with different craters and such. We each see a moon of one second before the observation. Neither of those moons is the ancient moon state that is common to us all. We can't see it directly, but it definitely has had a causal effect on all of us, so it has been measured. 'Measured' is the relationship in my book, and is the sort of relativism that I'm entertaining. It has nothing to do with humans, concepts, vision, life or anything like that. Most of your questions seem to involve life and/or vision, but I find all these to make no special difference to ontology. It seems idealistic to suggest otherwise.

Now what about the smallest virus, do you think they seen a 'moon'?

They're affected by it. Viruses don't have vision sense.

If we have some living thing the size of a molecule, it will only see molecules and never a round circular moon.

I doubt a molecule sized thing has vision sense either, however much it might do something constructive with a photon. That something that small could be a life form also stretches the imagination. Yet this molecule is affected by the ancient moon, so the ancient moon exists to it.

Note for example Science - the most reliable objective knowledge of reality - has to assume reality is independent of human condition within its framework and system. As far Science is concern, humans are more interested in its utility than its assumption.

Science is about making good predictions, and it doesn't seem to make any commitment to ontology one way or the other. It says the sun will likely rise tomorrow whether or not we or it are actual things or not. Yes, I suppose it assumes the world is independent of human condition, but it doesn't necessarily need to suppose that it is all real. In fact, more than half the metaphysical interpretations of science deny that reality. It is called counterfactual definiteness, and it is the principle that things exist even if not measured. I personally reject this principle since it conflicts with other principles that seem more important. I measure the moon (both the ancient one and the one-second old one), so it exists to me, but that doesn't mean it exists to something else that doesn't measure it.

You need to consider and reflect on the reason [most possible] why you are so insistent there is something that is absolutely independent of the human condition, is actually psychological due to an embedded evolved 4 billion years old instinct.

I've reflected plenty on the biases that evolution has dumped on us. Fitness always trumps truth. So I find myself in the uncomfortable position of holding beliefs I know rationally to be nonsense, yet my belief persists. The rational part of me is clearly not in charge. I don't think I would be fit if it was.

Anyway, the relativism isn't one of those things I 'know' to be true. It just makes more sense to me right now, but maybe something else will win me over next month or something. I tend to jump ship often.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If ancient moon exists to dinosaurs, then it is still relative, i.e. relative to dinosaurs and dinosaurs are relative to us.

Yes to all. By ancient moon, I mean the one of a billion years ago, just to pick something specific.

Note what is 'billion years ago' is relative to humans. Point is there is an infusion of relativity everywhere thus no stand point for an absolute independence, i.e. no God's eye view for humans.

Now are you so sure the dinosaurs are seeing the 'moon' exactly like humans?

No, each of us sees a moon with different craters and such. We each see a moon of one second before the observation. Neither of those moons is the ancient moon state that is common to us all. We can't see it directly, but it definitely has had a causal effect on all of us, so it has been measured. 'Measured' is the relationship in my book, and is the sort of relativism that I'm entertaining. It has nothing to do with humans, concepts, vision, life or anything like that. Most of your questions seem to involve life and/or vision, but I find all these to make no special difference to ontology. It seems idealistic to suggest otherwise.

There is metaphysics but ontology in terms of substance theory or something that stand by itself independent of relativity do not exists. Note Kant's thing in itself.

Now what about the smallest virus, do you think they seen a 'moon'?

They're affected by it. Viruses don't have vision sense.

They have no sensual function but they can still interact with the moon, which mean it has to be relative.

If we have some living thing the size of a molecule, it will only see molecules and never a round circular moon.

I doubt a molecule sized thing has vision sense either, however much it might do something constructive with a photon. That something that small could be a life form also stretches the imagination. Yet this molecule is affected by the ancient moon, so the ancient moon exists to it.

Same as virus above.
A virus [a few molecules of it] that attack a human being do no see a human being like we do but it nevertheless interact with humans or anything with its own feelers which inevitably has to be relative.
Obviously a virus is not going to declare the human body is independent of itself?

Note for example Science - the most reliable objective knowledge of reality - has to assume reality is independent of human condition within its framework and system. As far Science is concern, humans are more interested in its utility than its assumption.

Science is about making good predictions, and it doesn't seem to make any commitment to ontology one way or the other. It says the sun will likely rise tomorrow whether or not we or it are actual things or not. Yes, I suppose it assumes the world is independent of human condition, but it doesn't necessarily need to suppose that it is all real. In fact, more than half the metaphysical interpretations of science deny that reality. It is called counterfactual definiteness, and it is the principle that things exist even if not measured. I personally reject this principle since it conflicts with other principles that seem more important. I measure the moon (both the ancient one and the one-second old one), so it exists to me, but that doesn't mean it exists to something else that doesn't measure it.

If Science is not bothered with ontology and yet it has such great positive potential and proven success, metaphysics can also give up ontology [independent substance theory] and live life productively.

Actually the drive and compulsion towards ontology is the quest for an independent ultimate being, i.e. God [illusory] to provide salvation and relieve the inherent existential crisis. While such ontology has benefits to the individual's psychology, it has negative consequences to all of humanity. Note all the terrible evils and violence committed in the name of that so claimed independent being, i.e. God.

When humans can give up the quest for an independent entity and objects, then there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence. But this is not possible for the majority to give up the ontological being since the existential crisis is inherent and embedded.

You need to consider and reflect on the reason [most possible] why you are so insistent there is something that is absolutely independent of the human condition, is actually psychological due to an embedded evolved 4 billion years old instinct.

I've reflected plenty on the biases that evolution has dumped on us. Fitness always trumps truth. So I find myself in the uncomfortable position of holding beliefs I know rationally to be nonsense, yet my belief persists. The rational part of me is clearly not in charge. I don't think I would be fit if it was.

Anyway, the relativism isn't one of those things I 'know' to be true. It just makes more sense to me right now, but maybe something else will win me over next month or something. I tend to jump ship often.

Point is relativism [not crude subjective relativism] is the only tenable perspective in every way as I had demonstrated above.
How else?

So I find myself in the uncomfortable position of holding beliefs I know rationally to be nonsense, yet my belief persists.

I admit I am in the same shoe.
If someone tell me to avoid something [not very stupid] due to some superstitious beliefs I will comply and not challenge it so not to counter my subconscious mind.
I was a theist for a long time and I am fortunate I have graduated and weaned off from theism [illusory god] to non-theism.

[jayjacobus]

To put this back to the original post; epistemology is about referencing versus what is referenced. Referencing changes but reality is always the same.

[Noax]

Note what is 'billion years ago' is relative to humans. Point is there is an infusion of relativity everywhere thus no stand point for an absolute independence, i.e. no God's eye view for humans.

The time is not necessarily relative to humans, but the moon then is. I can say 'the moon at time bang+12.8 billion years' which is not a human-relative time, but it is still a human-relative 'the moon' reference. The moon does not exist relative to the big bang, but time '12.8 billion years hence' does exist relative to the big bang.

There is metaphysics but ontology in terms of substance theory or something that stand by itself independent of relativity do not exists.

Really having a hard time parsing this statement. Sorry.

[Viruses are] affected by it. Viruses don't have vision sense.

They have no sensual function but they can still interact with the moon, which mean it has to be relative.

I think I said that, except I would have worded it as 'which means there has to be a relation between the two'.

A virus [a few molecules of it] that attack a human being do no see a human being like we do but it nevertheless interact with humans or anything with its own feelers which inevitably has to be relative.
Obviously a virus is not going to declare the human body is independent of itself?

The ability of a virus to declare something aside, there are realists who claim the apple doesn't require the human for its existence, and such a realist would declare that the human body is independent of the virus. So not 'obviously'. But yes, I would say that for a virus in a world with humans, the humans would not be independent of the virus since the humans have a causal effect on them. Humans are real to those viruses.

If Science is not bothered with ontology and yet it has such great positive potential and proven success, metaphysics can also give up ontology [independent substance theory] and live life productively.

They can. Not the point of studying metaphysics. Science is interested in practical things. Most people (and almost any animal) hold and act on certain metaphysical beliefs, but often without realization that they are making metaphysical assumptions.

Actually the drive and compulsion towards ontology is the quest for an independent ultimate being, i.e. God [illusory] to provide salvation and relieve the inherent existential crisis. While such ontology has benefits to the individual's psychology, it has negative consequences to all of humanity. Note all the terrible evils and violence committed in the name of that so claimed independent being, i.e. God.

Good points. People act on their metaphysical beliefs, so clearly the study of metaphysics is not pointless. But that doesn't make it science.

When humans can give up the quest for an independent entity and objects, then there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence.

I doubt that. Relativism still might say I exist not independently, but relative to the god, and I still do the theistic practices. My metaphysics says I cannot exist relative to a god, but different metaphysics allows this.

Point is relativism [not crude subjective relativism] is the only tenable perspective in every way as I had demonstrated above.
How else?

I think I missed that demonstration. For instance, how is the realist position inconsistent?
I myself in this thread have not yet attempted to express the problems I see with the various alternate views, so I'm not claiming a demonstration having been given. Mind you, I sort of agree with the general idea of relativism (except the list of things that are special).

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no ontological evil floating around independently for man to discover.
Yes, in that case 'evil' is subjected to the state of man.

This is the critical point that evil is man-made.
Because evil is man-made, evil can be man-prevented and eliminated by man.

How can evil be man-made when evil is an absence of good? Should man be eliminated?

I have defined 'evil' in terms of evil acts like genocides, mass rapes, murders, etc.
These evil acts are [hu]man-made.
Human acts are controlled mainly in the brain.
Therefore we should understand the brain more precisely so we can take preventive actions to ensure humans do not commit evil acts [either eliminate or kept to the optimal minimum].

And why is "genocide, mass rape, murder" immoral when secular cultures argue for the necessity of them through action?

If all of these are the result of the brain, and we must understand the nature of the brain through the brain, then we are left with an infinite regress.

But if man is measurer, and God is the ultimate measurer, than man should be eliminated?

Prove God is possible before you talk about God involvement with man.

The All and Nothing are the foundations for God as a typeless definition with all typeless definitions holding this dualism of "the all" and nothing, with "the all" observing unity and the "nothing" (as not a thing in itself but rather a statement of relation) observing multiplicity.

Another critical point is man cannot get rid of the idea of God without finding fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent unavoidable psychological crisis that generated the idea of the illusory God.

And what are the "fool proof alternatives"...or is this a statement of dogmatic faith?

One fool proof [near 90%] alternative is the religion of non-theistic Buddhism which do not has any elements of evil in its main religious texts. The other is Jainism and the likes.
90% fool proof is not enough since religious based Buddhism and Jainism has its religious cons and negatives.
So humanity must strive to find alternatives that are 95-99% fool proofs and this is very possible in the future given the current steep trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. [you have to keep up with this].

In a possibilistic universe a 95-99% chance of accuracy observes that statistically a 5% to 1% of existence inevitably happens.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note what is 'billion years ago' is relative to humans. Point is there is an infusion of relativity everywhere thus no stand point for an absolute independence, i.e. no God's eye view for humans.

The time is not necessarily relative to humans, but the moon then is. I can say 'the moon at time bang+12.8 billion years' which is not a human-relative time, but it is still a human-relative 'the moon' reference. The moon does not exist relative to the big bang, but time '12.8 billion years hence' does exist relative to the big bang.

This is a heavily debated issue.
My stance is 'time' is relative to humans.

There is metaphysics but ontology in terms of substance theory or something that stand by itself independent of relativity do not exists.

Really having a hard time parsing this statement. Sorry.

It is acceptable to deliberate [philosophically] on the topics of metaphysics, i.e. specifically something beyond physics.
But one of the topics of ontology [in terms of substance theory] is not tenable at all.
Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Actually the drive and compulsion towards ontology is the quest for an independent ultimate being, i.e. God [illusory] to provide salvation and relieve the inherent existential crisis. While such ontology has benefits to the individual's psychology, it has negative consequences to all of humanity. Note all the terrible evils and violence committed in the name of that so claimed independent being, i.e. God.

Good points. People act on their metaphysical beliefs, so clearly the study of metaphysics is not pointless. But that doesn't make it science.

Yes, the study of metaphysics is not pointless but there is a questionable point with those who claimed ontology [substance theory] is something real which for the majority would extent to the ontological God is real.

When humans can give up the quest for an independent entity and objects, then there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence.

I doubt that. Relativism still might say I exist not independently, but relative to the god, and I still do the theistic practices. My metaphysics says I cannot exist relative to a god, but different metaphysics allows this.

I have argued the idea of God is relative to humans.
I agree theism [hinges on ontology] is still a psychological critical necessity for the majority at the present.
But then theism has it cons.
However it is predictable the trend of the cons of theism are outweighing its pros.
This is why we must disclose the psychological truths of God and deal with the evils related to theism on a psychological basis.

Point is relativism [not crude subjective relativism] is the only tenable perspective in every way as I had demonstrated above.
How else?

I think I missed that demonstration. For instance, how is the realist position inconsistent?
I myself in this thread have not yet attempted to express the problems I see with the various alternate views, so I'm not claiming a demonstration having been given. Mind you, I sort of agree with the general idea of relativism (except the list of things that are special).

The philosophical realist insist objects and reality [as an object] are independent of the human conditions. This is not tenable because humans are parts and parcel of reality.
In addition there is no way to nail and object objectively that exists independent of the subject - this is the Philosophical anti-Realists' stance.

In philosophical ontology, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Kant for example agree objects are independent of the human conditions in one perspective [i.e. empirical realism] but this overall perspective is further subjected to the human conditions at another meta-level perspective.


Note Russell once sounded in Problems of Philosophy in the pursuit of an independent object, e.g. a table out there;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.

Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.

The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls:
Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God;
sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Note what we perceive as a table [object] are merely sense data interpreted from various waves from the supposed real object out there [X] independent of human conditions.
So there is a Reality Gap between whatever is X we perceived as a table and our human conditions [body, senses, reasoning].
This Reality Gap is only closed with various waves.
There is no real way humans can get in 'touch' with that supposedly real thing.
So the question is, is X really a table or what things it is?

The ultimate answer for people like Kant is there is no real table or X out there that is independent of the human conditions. Everything of reality is relative to the human conditions, that is the most human can conclude confidently.

As Wittgenstein asserted;

"what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

That 'what' above is very leading, i.e. infer there is something.

But note Heidegger,

There is no thing that is a 'what' 'that' and 'it' there is only 'being' which should never be reified.