This is a brief attempt to clarify certain ideas that deal with observers, their observations, physical objects and certain traits that require a mind to exist.
Objectively true statements are true whether they are observed or not; subjectively true statements require an observer, thus they are never objectively true.
If a certain trait requires a mind to exist, then it is a trait that logically doesn't exist outside the mind; it is a subjective trait.
If a certain trait doesn't need an observer in order for it to exist, it is an objective trait.
”A square has four sides” is an objectively true statement by definition; this is not something that is dependent on observer because a square by definition is a geometrical construct with four sides.
”That painting is beautiful” is not objectively true; it is a certain perception that exists (=is true) only in the mind of someone who observes the painting and states that to be the case (a painting without an observer doesn't have any traits that require an observer).
If we define ”god” as something that is the most important part of somebody's life (the most essential part of it), something that one is fully dependent on, how can I – as an outsider – describe the situation (in which this trait is given to a material object) to its full extent without adhering to the mentality that he actually has a god?
Consider someone with a keen affection towards his toilet brush (simplified: person x claims that object p has a certain trait q). Acknowledge the fact that this affection does not exist outside the observer's mind; thus it is a true statement within his mind and that only. It is true in the same sense as it is true for him to state that objects that he finds attractive are (by his definition) attractive.
The reason for why this affection doesn't exist outside his mind is that if we either remove the observer or substitute the observer with a second observer that does not have said affection towards said object, then the ”god” or ”attractiveness” trait is no longer present. And upon understanding this we can immediately deduce that the trait is not inherently ”there.”
So how would we describe the situation? The easiest answer is to say that the person claims that his toilet brush is his god. Similarly, if he was to claim that his girlfriend is attractive, we could very well agree to the fact that he indeed does claim this. After all, this is what we do observe. We do not observe the trait because it doesn't exist in our mind. The reason why this is important to take into account is because should the original statement by person x (=object p has a certain trait q) be false (=person x lies), then we would find ourselves in a tricky situation.
If ”person x claims that object p has a certain trait q” allows us to conclude that ”object p has a certain trait q” is objectively true (that is, ”person x claims that object p has a certain trait q” and ”object p has a certain trait q” would be saying the same thing, which they in reality are not), then a following problem would occur: we would have to draw the same conclusion regardless of the truth value of the original statement, as there doesn't exist any means to determine whether it is true or false.
The most satisfying and truthful answer to our problem is that we can only describe the situation as it is presented to us. Thus the only satisfying answer is: ”person x claims that the toilet brush is his god.” This is everything we can know for sure. In other words, ”he claims that p is q” is not the same as ”p is q.”