What is the difference between subjective truth and objective truth? Do you have a telephone line to god or some other entity that will tell you Objective Truth?

There is no intellectually satisfying answer, in the form or a mathematical proof.

For if there were, then your liberty to reject that objective truth would stand diminished.

I can only tell you, for example, that "form follows function", not offer a proof that retires modern hedonism.

Its a simple question either you have a telephone line to Objective Truth or you don't. If you don't have a telephone line to Objective Truth, you are bsing and trying to pass off your Subjective Truth as Objective Truth. Otherwise all truths are the best approximations we get from Subjective Experience. On matters of this fundamental level, high level of rigor is even more important, if you fail to provide that then it should be completely dismissed. Such a fundamental basis of thought cannot be left to wishy washy nonsense.

You're at liberty to go the Full Bertrand Russell with the rejection of the "wishy washy" all you like; Objective Truth is always going to bring along a Kurt Gödel.

Whether or not you buy off on the notion that Objective Truth paid a visit a couple millenia back and was crucified for explaining that Truth to humanity remains a subjective matter.

It has to remain subjective, lest it tampered with your free will to reject that Objective Truth.

We all get to own our response to that Onjective Truth, free and clear.

One anticipates that this reply will stand rejected as "wishy washy" for having failed to externalize something that does not yield to externalization. All I can say is: best wishes to you, sir.

If a thing close to an objective truth exists, there is no reason that it would preclude freedom to reject it. Flat earthers won't exist otherwise.

The kind of thing you are falsely calling "objective truth", there have been thousands that have passed, and dozens still active that still claim to be also the same type of "objective truth". All of them contradict each other and are blatantly wrong even on really basic matters. It doesn't even try to be objective truth, any attempts to even make it so are treated by the response that one needs "Faith and Belief". Not just yours, all of them.

And even if we ignore the fact that these were sociopolitical movements primarily, even if we take that people were trying really in earnest to find truth, again its ridiculous and disproved by thousands of examples to believe men 2000 years ago could find the "final truth". Much better attempts at this goal, via the physical sciences, have been refined or disproven over the centuries, let alone what those men were doing.

Possibly you can take the negative approach and reject all of these inferior answers to arrive at something.

I've done what's possible in this medium to explain why you will always retain a quibble.

Let me now sign off and leave you the last word.

Your problem is that there are thousands of similar "truths" in the past and dozens currently active in the present. Which is true? None of them are able to show theirs is true and the others are wrong.

The problem with these groups is that they are taking a really hard problem and going the opposite direction of feasible ways to begin solving it. Mathematics and the physical sciences came the closest, after much pain and effort. And these groups have as yet only been able to contradict each other and each claim to be the ultimate truth.