I love religion!

[Purple Rabbit]

OK objective truth I'll redefine. Truth is subjective information because it's what? unobservable, non-subject to peer review, able to be counted, imitated, describable. If it is the antithesis of theese things I'm calling it objective. Perhaps I should have used the term "non-subjective informational truth", but objective seemed better for brevity.

I didn't urge you to redefine objective truth but my point is that you are asserting that objective truth is observable. Objective truth in my book is the same as reality itself. The question however is if we can directly observe raw objective truth. Since the nature of observation is interpretation of phenomena presumably associated with objects instead of direct knowledge of truth itself, it is always impossible to be 100% sure if you're indeed observing truth itself. So the combination of observable objective truth is what I disagree with not with objective truth as such.

As far as intangible evidence as proofs; mathmatical evidence supports mathmatical findings, logical thought progression supports a theoretical premise, historical evidence or provenance provide historical proofs. My point was the type of proof is relative (as it should be) to it's summation. You can use math or logic or history to prove some areas of let's say astronomy, but astronomical evidence that is observable is the best proof.
While I "cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone" (refferencing logic and intuiton) I am not concluding anything about the definition of reality you're using in the above quote. I am concluding spiritual truths based off spiritual evidence supported by logic, intuition, peers, and observations.

You said of religion that "It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations." But objectification must mean something like "compare it objectively with reality itself", since it is not self-evident that what is thought up is true in our reality. In order to do so you need direct access to reality or objective truth. When you mean by this that from conceptual truths you can conclude other conceptual truths, I agree, but the truths you obtain are still dependent on the premises from which you depart.

I sense an underlying question: Is logic absolute, non-contigent, independent of everything? To answer this one you can break it down in two questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
2) does logic apply to reality?

Please let me know what your answer on these questions would be.

---

If there is an objective meaning to life, morality, or even existence: we cannot know it as subjective beings. And what is objectivity to begin with? As far as i can be aware: this is all my delusion. I can only define things for myself... and since i can define them in any way at all: it follows that anything can be defined in any way,..

It does not follow from subjectivity of knowledge that anything can be defined in any way without consequences. It turns out that the definition matters in respect of predictiveness of reality. If you define things you perceive arbitrarily, dealing with reality might become impossible. Suppose for instance that you define a lemmon as a sourish fruit on one occasion and as sweet fruit on another occasion. So for a reality that to a large extent obeys a certain logic as perceived by our senses, it might be advantageous to assume a certain logical consistency of reality reflected in perception. Of course that would not be truth itself, just a working hypothesis.

...thus the definition for anything is entirely based upon the subjective viewpoint of the definer... and thus there is no meaning without a definer (existentialism). Because there is no meaning without a definer (which is subjective): there is no objective meaning for anything (nihilism).

Moral judgement is indeed based on the subjective viewpoint of the definer, but its definition is not without consequences. When dealing with other humans (of which their existence for the sake of logical consistency of reality reflected in perception is assumed (see above)) one might therefore assume other moral judgement, but dealing with these other humans generally means some sort of syncing or sharing of moral judgement. Sharing of moral values is the basis of cultural demarcation and provides an 'infrastructure' for the individual to operate and survive in. So I agree there is no objective moral truth, but it is shared moral truth that makes reality tick for you.