The Universe Predated Humans?

[Veritas Aequitas]

• [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing [...] is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  [...]
  [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views [...] which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
  [...]
  Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note: "Realism" is a misnomer, i.e. hijacked by philosophical realists to represent reality when Philosophical Realism is not ultimately realistic itself.

When anti-realists counter the stance of Philosophical Realism, the ultimate defending point used is;

• 'the Universe Existed and Predated Humans'
  therefore the universe and things therein existed without and independently of Humans and had continued to do so to the present,
  thus Philosophical Realism is real as defined.

Really??

The problem is the Philosophical Realists are not realistic.
Philosophical Realists are ignorant of what is really going on as below in arriving at the conclusions of their ideology;

• 1. We are certain we exists as real; rationally [problem of other minds countered], all humans are real. What is inherent within all humans are the human conditions.
  
  2. Humans' conditions comprised various reasoning abilities, i.e. common sense, conventional sense, scientific sense, etc. and philosophical sense [lowest to highest to date]
  
  3. Using common sense, it is obvious human [with human conditions] can perceive there are external things that exist out there independent of the human body and self. But the accuracy with common sense is questionable
  
  4. Using the conventional sense [as in arts, literary, intellectual] it is also obvious human [with human conditions] can perceive there are external things that exist out there independent of the human body and self. But the accuracy is questionable.
  
  5. Using the Scientific Sesnse [the most reliable source of truth at present] it is more evident [empirical verifications] human scientists [with human conditions] can verify and justify there are external things that exist out there independent of the human body and self.
  Science can also justify the universe predated humans, but note this conclusion is grounded on human conditions.
  Science by default do not claim absolute certainty of its accuracy in representing reality.
  While most scientists do, some scientist do not assume there is a corresponding independent external reality out there.
  
  6. The Philosophical Sense.
  Since scientific knowledge being merely 'polished conjectures' philosophers [based on their human conditions] attempt to close whatever holes there exist within Science.
  The Philosophical Realist [with human conditions] came up with their ideology of Philosophical Realism as defined above, i.e. reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions

What the Philosophical Realists do not realize in a very profound, refine and ultimate view, is their conclusion in 6 is grounded upon 1, i.e. human conditions.
The Philosophical Realists argument is thus circular.
There is no other ways the philosophical realists can essentially ground their argument other than being inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
One recourse is to claim they are God thus independent of all reality, but God is an impossibility to be true or real.

Therefore Philosophical Realism is false, i.e.;
Reality cannot be absolutely independent of human conditions.

Views or counters from realists [philosophical, critical, indirect and the likes]?

Nb: The above is merely an outline of the main elements, but they are all supported and justified by the relevant evidences and arguments; the details whilst not presented above are available.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anti-Philosophical Realists [anti-realists] hold the opposite view to Philosophical Realism, i.e.;
Reality cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Nevertheless, there are many types of anti-realists and each will have to justify their claims are true and sound.

[Lacewing]

I think there are many levels and versions of reality.

The Universe and our planet appear to have been around a very long time before humans came into existence -- which is a 'reality' on that level. When humans arrived, they started imprinting their mental energy onto the canvas they perceived... manipulating and manufacturing much more than they have seemed to be aware of... while diverging from each other and creating countless realities and versions on the human level. Beyond that, there are all the levels of 'reality' that are not easily-observable/knowable by humans, or that are beyond human comprehension -- all of which we might tend to ignore/dismiss or distort because we cannot understand or explain them, or we have no need for it in our preferred 'reality'. How much do we perceive and create... and how much exists beyond us? Both are real.

Identifying/defining what 'reality' is, seems to be all about us (our perceptions/creations)... as we argue with each other over one person's canvas versus another's. Which art is true at an art exhibit? Some may be masterful... some may be whacked out... but what would be identified as true? Considering all the levels and versions, I continually question how reality or truth can be one knowable or over-arching thing, and what drives humans to insist that they know what that is? It's so ridiculous, yet many seem so dependent on claiming that they have the answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think there are many levels and versions of reality.

The Universe and our planet appear to have been around a very long time before humans came into existence -- which is a 'reality' on that level. When humans arrived, they started imprinting their mental energy onto the canvas they perceived... manipulating and manufacturing much more than they have seemed to be aware of... while diverging from each other and creating countless realities and versions on the human level. Beyond that, there are all the levels of 'reality' that are not easily-observable/knowable by humans, or that are beyond human comprehension -- all of which we might tend to ignore/dismiss or distort because we cannot understand or explain them, or we have no need for it in our preferred 'reality'. How much do we perceive and create... and how much exists beyond us? Both are real.

Identifying/defining what 'reality' is, seems to be all about us (our perceptions/creations)... as we argue with each other over one person's canvas versus another's. Which art is true at an art exhibit? Some may be masterful... some may be whacked out... but what would be identified as true? Considering all the levels and versions, I continually question how reality or truth can be one knowable or over-arching thing, and what drives humans to insist that they know what that is? It's so ridiculous, yet many seem so dependent on claiming that they have the answer.

Agree, there are many levels of reality.

There is reality, but being human and conditional there is no way humans can ever insist what is ultimate reality that is unconditional.

On the question of unconditional reality, what Wittgenstein stated is true, i.e.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
It is the same with the Taoist's
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao" -Chuang Tzu
It is the same with Buddhism and the likes.

Unfortunately humans are also inherently driven [psychologically] to nail [reify] the Ultimate Unconditioned naturally and more often the resultant is that of an ultimate personal God. This has its pros and cons. However, the trend with theism is its cons are outweighing its pros as we move towards the future.

Thus it is wiser for us to understand the psychology, neurosciences, or whatever of the inherent drive for the ultimate so that we can modulate it effectively to optimize the well being of the individuals and humanity.

[commonsense]

Anti-Philosophical Realists [anti-realists] hold the opposite view to Philosophical Realism, i.e.;
Reality cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Nevertheless, there are many types of anti-realists and each will have to justify their claims are true and sound.

Agree.

The universe consists of all that there is. Humans exist. Humans are part of the universe. The universe is not independent of humans.

The “incomplete universe” may predate humans, as it is not dependent upon humans. Prior to the existence of the universe, there was a “partial universe” which didn’t include humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anti-Philosophical Realists [anti-realists] hold the opposite view to Philosophical Realism, i.e.;
Reality cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Nevertheless, there are many types of anti-realists and each will have to justify their claims are true and sound.

Agree.

The universe consists of all that there is. Humans exist. Humans are part of the universe. The universe is not independent of humans.

The “incomplete universe” may predate humans, as it is not dependent upon humans. Prior to the existence of the universe, there was a “partial universe” which didn’t include humans.

One point to note is,
the supposedly independent universe is merely a necessary abstraction from the reality which all humans are intricately part and parcel with.

To facilitate understanding, knowing and communicating reality, humans has to abstract parts of reality or even the whole as a universal instead of being burden of the detailed totality of what-is-really-real.
The necessity of such abstraction lead to the concept of an external universe which is in a way verifiable by evident empirical evidence but are actually limited because our senses and intellect are fallible and limited.