Yes we can come up with a definiton of happiness that is universally applicable at all times. It would be a weighty project but doable. I believe Aristotle gave it a pretty good shot. Healthy mind, healthy body, adequate economic conditions, liberty, productive work, positive relationships etc...overall flourishing in every human sense.
You're trying hard to reconcile your belief in otherworldy reality with a happy life on earth. But if happiness isn't objective, why are you so obsessed with being happy in Heaven with God? Assuming you're as religious as you sound, that is.
Not objectively so, no.
Happiness isn't objective?
Nope. And if you claim otherwise, it is up to you to provide the proof.
Healthy mind, healthy body, adequate economic conditions, liberty, productive work, positive relationships etc...overall flourishing in every human sense.
And yet I know people who are happy despite lacking one or more of those factors.... And I also know people who have all those things, and yet are unhappy.... Clearly, although one can freely acknowledge them to be good and wonderful things, they obviously do not constitute objective grounds for happiness.
You're trying hard to reconcile your belief in otherworldy reality with a happy life on earth. But if happiness isn't objective, why are you so obsessed with being happy in Heaven with God? Assuming you're as religious as you sound, that is.
Well, no: I'm merely laying out for you the grounds by which you must (rationally) demonstrate the objective basis of "happiness," which you claim exists.
Your little comment is, however, quite unfortunately common to most interactions I've had with self-professed libertarians: when unable to confront the logic of their position, they attempt to shift the argument to something else.
But I'm not going there: I'm going to hold you to your claims of objectivity, and demand that you provide them.