If, as philosophical realism suggests, that physical objects posess absolute existence independent of consciousness and knowledge, then how can there be a necessary relationship between the human subject and physical objects?

I suppose the answer is that there is no such necessary relationship. And we know that because we know that before there were human beings there were objects like the Moon and the stars.

If you are going to assert that some particular thing posesses independent existence then aren't you denying the natural processes that are logically necessary for their coming-to-be?

Isn't the moon obviously connected in time by a natural process that points beyond it? a necessary connection between it and the other natural objects?

It seems the moon can't have independent existence if we are to here identify it as a natural object. It must rest upon a prior natural process. And this process will ever be the very same natural process that the development of human minds also depends upon.

The question is, how do we prove that our knowledge is certain - ?

Because you are guilty of maintaining an unnatural independence of objects, one from another, you are much further away from fulfilling the criteria for certitude.

The moon didn't spring forth at once out of the infinities of time and space; and the very potential for the creation of human minds did not likewise spring out of an infinity of chaos. The natural potential for the creation of human minds is not purely accidental but must be related to the same natural processes as those that formed the moon. How could you distinguish between the two?

But isn't it true that the Moon existed before human beings existed?

Even Abraham Lincoln?

Abraham Lincoln was not alive before human being existed, if that is what you mean. It was also true, even before human beings existed that Abraham Lincoln exists in 1860. What else are you asking?

1) did Lincoln exist before there were any living humans?
2) does Lincoln exist now?

For philosophical realism, there can be no particular connection between subject and object. My question is, how can there be any natural relationship between subject and object when the subject is taken to be just another object?

But isn't it true that the Moon existed before human beings existed? So, doesn't it follow that the existence of human beings is not necessary for the Moon to exist?

I just recently noticed something that might be related to what you're saying. If you listen to an atheist, it might seem we're hearing something in the background, so to speak: there's something missing from his or her picture of reality: namely himself, or herself.... the self of the speaker... the one making the comments. Has the self been equated with nothing?

You can do all sorts of shenanigans with the self... you can break it down into ego, id, superego... make it some multidimensional intuition translator.. you can say it's an illusion... a lie is still something. If you equate the self with nothing, though... it would appear there's a little problem. Who just stated that equation?

So maybe less analysis of the painting and more noticing that we're trying to establish a vantage point on a painting that we're in?

I am not sure whether you are asking (A) or (B)

What has any of this to do with atheism?

It would seem that for a thing to be known, there must be a knower.

There are many examples of perspectives that ignore that. Atheism is the one I happened to be thinking about.

I still do not understand why atheism says there is no knower (of what?). You are very mysterious. Why not just say what you mean? Whether or not God exists, people know many things including that the Moon existed before there were people.

Atheists tend to treat consciousness as an explainable factor... somebody's in a lab working on that.

Big assumptions are being made regarding what exactly science has accomplished thus far... how much they actually have wrapped up and pinned down. But these assumptions usually are accompanied by strong emotional bias. There's no torpedo of logic that will penetrate it.

So my thought is: fortresses exist for a reason. Let it be.

Atheists tend to treat consciousness as an explainable factor... somebody's in a lab working on that.

Big assumptions are being made regarding what exactly science has accomplished thus far... how much they actually have wrapped up and pinned down. But these assumptions usually are accompanied by strong emotional bias. There's no torpedo of logic that will penetrate it.

So my thought is: fortresses exist for a reason. Let it be.

You are leaving out that which is necessary for the moon to exist. You are implying that the moon is an independent object, which it clearly is not. Furthermore, how could it matter to the analysis of nature at what point in time humans came to exist?

The moon is an independent object. Why would you think otherwise?

The moon is an independent object. Why would you think otherwise?