Do you believe in "objective truth"?

I do believe in objective truths.

Colours aren't one of them (unless you're going for a scientific definition of a colour (e.g. defining by it's wavelength or (I guess) by something like it's Pantone number - they're absolute). I know this for a fact because I will call something "green" and my wife will go into great detail about how it's not green but "teal" or "sage" (or some other made up colour that I've never heard of before) and she'll be very insistent about it. And I've learned that there's no way I can win that argument.

So colours are generally not an objective truth.

I consider math problems to be an objective truth like 1 + 1 = 2 since there is no other correct answer. Opinions, theories, or perspectives are all subjective.

The sky could also be black if you were to look at it during the night in its pure state when the sun isn’t out. So saying it’s blue isn’t technically correct or the only answer anyway. I don’t consider color objective just because more than one color is usually mixed together and people have different judgments which one stands out more. It makes it difficult to say which perspective is the correct one when it comes to color. We view color based on majority agreement of how’s its perceived but I wouldn’t call that objective truth.

I am shocked but pleased to see that someone else on this board knows what the Pantone system is.  Is your wife an artist?

I am just the opposite; I was matching designer gouache to Pantone numbers to actually paint licensed characters, like Rainbow Brite and Winnie the Pooh, back before computers had even gotten started.  But then, once they did, I couldn't make the leap to the technology, so I had to get a non-tech day job to make ends meet. I still am a very s l o w learner, but have sort of figured out Publisher, enough to fix errors in the newspaper I proofread. Someday I may be able to return to art as a fine artist, at least as a part-time thing.

Ah, you two sound like me and my late husband - he was the tech nerd, going back to when computers occupied entire rooms.  He had a hard time, dumbing down enough to teach me how to pay the bills online, but he very much appreciated my arty side, and encouraged me to keep going.  He did, however, predict the future, when all commercial artwork would go to computers. 

A few years after his passing, Hallmark, the social expression company, informed all artists that they had one year to learn how to do what they did on computer.  Most of the great, older artists took early retirement, and nowadays, the only hand-painted artwork on a Hallmark card is that of Marjolein Bastin, a well-known nature artist who works under contract.

Another commercial illustrator, a friend and mentor of mine, made the leap to fine art and has done well (hasn't starved yet, lol) But I miss the days of watercolor washes, hand-drawing figures in action, and the fun of seeing one's work published in a children's book.

I am okay, being an analog watch in a digital world, but do miss "the good, old days".  I do create fiber art, or art quilting, which satisfies my hands-on self, but there is no money in it, just enjoyment of creating a piece of art.

I can relate to your wife - I have long been a buyer of antiques!

Of the examples given in the OP, I would say no, those are not objective truths. This goes back to the tree falling in the woods thread, because mortal perceptions of the physical world are merely translations of external stimuli into electrical impulses by the nervous system, and that experience varies by individual and by species. Beauty (and everything else) is all in the eye and the brain of the beholder.

Are there objective truths? I think I'm going to say no. Most truths actually seem to be paradoxes... but that's just my perception.

Since you have mentioned Allah, I am going to start a new thread about the PBS documentary about Muhammed, the legacy of the prophet.

Actually, they did, with images of other people, but not of him, only words.  That was pivotal, I think.  There were plenty of illustrations of ancient art from the era, and video of modern day scholars, but no image of him.

Doesn't seem like it could be very accurate in any case. After all, if one imagines a physical image of God, one is probably wrong. lol. Thanks.