Theism vs. Atheism debate

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 540
#361
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@nagisa3
What is the difference between physical and metaphysical?
1} occupied space -- 3 primary kinds of occupied space

.......1a} Spirit-2, physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and aggregate thereof ex sub-atomics, atomics, moleculse, planets, galzies etc,

.......1b} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, Gravity (  )  aka positive shaped (  )  -Space- geodesic,
 
........1c} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark Energy )(  aka negative shaped )( -Space- geodesic.

2} Spirit-1 --spirit-of-intent--, metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Space, God, Intellect, Dogs Toyotas etc

3} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds our eternally existent and finite,  occupied space Universe #1 above.

#362
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
As keithprosser just noted, it depends what you mean by Sherlock Holmes and a 10-headed person. You would only say that which exists is necessary for whatever effect being investigated to occur. Like if someone becomes a Detective in honor of Mr. Holmes, is it necessary he actually solved crimes? or just stories about him solving crimes? If there was a person in jail, stories might not do. It's not like "stories exist" so this thing has a corporeal form. You have to ask, is the corporeal form necessary? Is something traceable back to it too? Things are, as I have said before, a combination of different entities. So you have to consider the different entitites individually really. 
How do you differentiate between "real true extant facts" (like the Sun) and "fake false imaginary dream hallucinations and their descriptions" (like Sherlock Holmes)? [LINK] and [LINK]
#363
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
way back (post #416) you wrote

And, keithprosser, something is said to exist if a change in the universe is traceable back to that thing. 
Why i think you are wrong is that suppose someone was so say 'God does not exist'.  Now, what did that person intend to convey by that remark?

If you are right the intended meaning is 'no change is traceable back to god'.

But I think the intended meaning is 'god is absent from the universe'.


#364
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Sherlock Holmes does not exist. 
Yes Sherlock Holmes and Unicorns exist as concepts ergo mind/intellect via and integral processing of brain and nervous system  we identify as consciousness.

The truth exists for those who seek it.

The truth is an accurate depiction of our observed experiences and/or any existence associated with our observed experiences even if not instrumentally quantised or mathematically quantified.

The facts are those truths that have been verified/confirmed via instruments or enough fair witness to enough information to make conclude a fact.



#365
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,344
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It's possible to imagine something existing.
#366
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
It's possible to imagine something existing.
Correct, but there's a difference.  Imaginary things do not properly "exist" (as either scientifically Quantifiable and or logically necessary).
#367
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Correct, but there's a difference.  Imaginary things do not properly "exist" (as either scientifically Quantifiable and or logically necessary).
The truth exists for those who seek it.

Yes Sherlock Holmes and Unicorns exist as concepts ergo mind/intellect via and integral processing of brain and nervous system  we identify as consciousness.

The truth is an accurate depiction of our observed experiences and/or any existence associated with our observed experiences even if not instrumentally quantised or mathematically quantified.

1} occupied space -- 3 primary kinds of occupied space

.......1a} Spirit-2, physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and aggregate thereof ex sub-atomics, atomics, molecules, planets, galzies etc,

.......1b} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, Gravity (  )  aka positive shaped (  )  -Space- geodesic,
 
........1c} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark Energy )(  aka negative shaped )( -Space- geodesic.

2} Spirit-1 --spirit-of-intent--, metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Space, God, Intellect, Dogs Toyotas etc

3} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds our eternally existent and finite,  occupied space Universe #1 above.


#368
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
No person can do this, it is about what others around you call the dream world and reality, then we agree and move on. In other words, distinctions between "real" or "extant" facts and hallucinations are only conventional.
Even (IFF) "reality" is equivalent to or just another type of "dream" (THEN) we still have the ability to distinguish between what is scientifically Quantifiable and or a logical necessity and what is not.

Hypothetical solipsism changes none of this.
#369
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
No person can do this, it is about what others around you call the dream world and reality, then we agree and move on. In other words, distinctions between "real" or "extant" facts and hallucinations are only conventional.
Hmmm.... is it only an agreed convention that it is impossible to breathe underwater?   Reality cannot be directly perceived and we can sometimes be unsure what is real and what is dream, but the difference between a real lion and a dreampt lion is a real difference and not a matter of agreeing a convention!

I think you are confusing what we can know about the world from how things are (or are not) in the world.  If you don't see the edge of a cliff we cannot save you by agreeing on a convention that there is no cliff edge there.

I don't dispute what we perceive is not the real world - what we perceive is a mental image inside our heads.   But there is a real world too where 'real extant facts' are not conventions.    

#370
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Even (IFF) "reality" is equivalent to or just another type of "dream" (THEN) we still have the ability to distinguish between what is scientifically Quantifiable and or a logical necessity and what is notThe truth exists for those who seek it. The
Reality { primary } is the set of truths and facts  existent in our observed experiences.

Dreams { 2ndary } are a semi-false reality that stem from  observed experiences of truth and facts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The truth exists for those who seek it.

Sherlock Holmes and Unicorns exist as concepts ergo mind/intellect via and integral processing of brain and nervous system  we identify as consciousness.

The truth is an accurate depiction of our observed experiences and/or any existence associated with our observed experiences even if not instrumentally quantised or mathematically quantified.

1} occupied space -- 3 primary kinds of occupied space

.......1a} Spirit-2, physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and aggregate thereof ex sub-atomics, atomics, molecules, planets, galzies etc,

.......1b} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, Gravity (  )  aka positive shaped (  )  -Space- geodesic,
 
........1c} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark Energy )(  aka negative shaped )( -Space- geodesic.

2} Spirit-1 --spirit-of-intent--, metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Space, God, Intellect, Dogs Toyotas etc

3} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds our eternally existent and finite,  occupied space Universe #1 above.




 

#371
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
Reality { primary } is the set of truths and facts  existent in our observed experiences. 

Dreams { 2ndary } are a semi-false reality that stem from  observed experiences of truth and facts.
This sounds reasonable, but I'd be careful to explicitly distinguish Quanta from Qualia.

In other words, I believe it unjustifiably muddys-the-waters to say something like "exists (real) as a concept (imaginary)" (since a particular concept is not scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary).

It would be like saying something nonsensical like, "tastes like god".
#372
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd be careful to explicitly distinguish Quanta from Qualia.
What do you mean by those terms?   If it helps, I imagine that quanta are objective and qualia are subective, so an example is the wavelength of light (quanta) and the colour of light (qualia).   Quanta can be measured by a device but qualia are perceived by a mind.


#373
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I'd be careful to explicitly distinguish Quanta from Qualia.
What do mean by those terms?   If it helps, I imagine that quanta are objective and qualia are subective, so an example is the wavelength of light (quanta) and the colour of light (qualia).   Quanta can be measured by a device but qualia are perceived by a mind.
That sounds about right.

Quanta is rigorously defined, scientifically and or logically verifiable phenomena and or formal systems (like mathematics) and are devoid of emotional meaningfulness.

Qualia are Qualitative, experiential, personal, private, gnostic, unfalsifiable and fundamentally meaningful.

I believe that since all possible human knowledge and experience is sample biased, it is misleading to call Quanta "objective".
#374
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, I believe it unjustifiably muddys-the-waters to say something like "exists (real) as a concept (imaginary)" (since a particular concept is not scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary).
I'd say the words 'exists', 'real' and 'true' are a bundle defined in terms of each other.   I agree that using exists in an extended sense muddies the waters, and that apllies to the other words as well.  I don't like terms such as 'true for you' and 'real for them'.  For example, if joe believes X then I think its dead wrong to say 'x is true for joe'.  X is either true or false.  if it appears otherwise X is probably badly worded!


#375
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe that since all possible human knowledge and experience is sample biased, it is misleading to call Quanta "objective".
I'm sure this has come up before, but what does objective mean?

What I mean by 'objective' is that something is independent of the observer.  That is to say it doesn't matter if it's you, me or or Joe Soap who measures the wavelength of some laser, as long as its measured competently the same result (allowing for experimental error, of course) is obtained.  The same is not true of the colour of the laser which may or may not vary between observers.

An important thing about objective qualities is that represent how things really are 'out there'.   That is to say the reason we all measure the laser wavelength to be 440 Angstroms is simply because that the laser has that wavelength!   



    

#376
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
What I mean by 'objective' is that something is independent of the observer.
 independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind [LINK]

It is impossible to verify the "existence" or "reality" of anything "independent of individual thought".

I would generally say, Objective: Unbiased, identical to all possible observers, not subject to variation in description or value (opinion).

This would include the property of being (physically, mentally and axiologically) identical to all humans at all possible points in history.

This would also, necessarily include the property of being (physically, mentally and axiologically) identical to all conceivable non-human observers.

For example, I believe rotten meat is trash and something to be avoided.  Flies are attracted to rotten meat and find it both nourishing and conducive to reproduction.

These definitions (of "objective" established as the opposite of "subjective") would seem to automatically exclude every possible identifiable human concept and observable phenomenon.
#377
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I would generally say, Objective: Unbiased, identical to all possible observers, not subject to variation in description or value (opinion).
This would include the property of being (physically, mentally and axiologically) identical to all humans at all possible points in history.
This would also, necessarily include the property of being (physically, mentally and axiologically) identical to all conceivable non-human observers.
Consider a particular rose.   It is red, pretty and has 7 thorns.

Of course it being red and pretty is just my opinion -  a colour-blind philistine might well disagree.  But even a colour-blind philistine will agree it has 7 thorns!  The properties of colour and prettiness are observer-dependent or subjective.  The number of thorns is observer independent or objective.

It seems you want to create a lot more hurdles for someting to be objective, but the standard subjective/objective distinction is very useful because it seperates attributes that are 'mind-based' (such as colour and prettiness of a rose) from those attributes which belong to cold, hard external reality, such as it's number of thorns.





#378
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Of course it being red and pretty is just my opinion -  a colour-blind philistine might well disagree.  But even a colour-blind philistine will agree it has 7 thorns!  The properties of colour and prettiness are observer-dependent or subjective.  The number of thorns is observer independent or objective.
However, that particular hypothetical rose only exists for a small fraction of history.

It is not identical to all possible observers.

Its value and importance and description is not identical to all humans.

Its value and importance and description is not identical to all animals.

The Quanta/Qualia distinction is more practical and rigorously defined than Objective/Subjective distinction.

Please give me one example of something that you believe is 100% unbiased?

Please give me one example of something that is not subject to opinion?

Please give me one example of something that has no variation in value?
#379
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
To see where you want to go with this, I will use

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'

for all 3.
#380
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
This sounds reasonable, but I'd be careful to explicitly distinguish Quanta
Quanta = Observed occupied space aka observed Time and has been accepted for many years now.

from Qualia.
Degrees of good, bad, love hate etc.

In other words, I believe it unjustifiably muddys-the-waters to say something like "exists (real)
1}real exists as an occupied space reality --as Ive stated for nearly 20 years now,

as a concept (imaginary)

2} exists as a metaphysical-1 concept as Ive stated for 20 years and Fuller even longer.

(since a particular concept is not scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary).

Metaphysical-1 triangle shape is not a quantity but is verifiable via  human experience  of the existence of an occupied space that approximates the shape of triangle, that, is common to most every human on Earth either visually or tactile

In other words, I believe it unjustifiably muddys-the-waters to say something like "exists (real) as a concept (imaginary)" (since a particular concept is not scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary).
It is is only muddy to those people ---apparrently yourself--- who have not yet aquired  the metaphysical-1 ability  to making a distinction between the following set.

1} occupied space -- 3 primary kinds of occupied space

.......1a} Spirit-2, physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and aggregate thereof ex sub-atomics, atomics, molecules, planets, galzies etc,

.......1b} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, Gravity (  )  aka positive shaped (  )  -Space- geodesic,
 
........1c} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark Energy )(  aka negative shaped )( -Space- geodesic.

2} Spirit-1 --spirit-of-intent--, metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Space, God, Intellect, Dogs Toyotas etc

3} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds our eternally existent and finite,  occupied space Universe #1 above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reality { primary } is the set of truths and facts  existent in our observed experiences.

Dreams { 2ndary } are a semi-false reality that stem from  our observed experiences of truth and facts.

Sherlock Holmes and Unicorns exist as concepts ergo mind/intellect via and integral processing of brain and nervous system  we identify as consciousness.

The truth is an accurate approximation, or depiction of our observed experiences and/or any existence associated with our observed experiences even if not instrumentally quantised or mathematically quantified.

Facts are the quantisable observations of our experiences.





#381
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
To see where you want to go with this, I will use

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'

for all 3.
You might have some trouble explaining what gallium is to all three.

You might have some trouble explaining what Celsius is to all three.

You might have some trouble convincing all three that your statement is "important" or otherwise worth considering.
#382
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
We are clearly not communicating!
i'll bail for now - perhaps some other thread will turn out more productively.

#383
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Please give me one example of something that you believe is 100% unbiased?

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'
This scientific fact is sample biased.  Only a tiny fraction of humans (historically) would even consider this statement comprehensible.  All non-human creatures would certainly find this organised sequence of glyphs wholly incomprehensible.

Please give me one example of something that is not subject to opinion?

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'
Not all gallium is identical and its melting point may vary depending on atmospheric pressure and or other mitigating factors.

Not all thermometers are perfectly calibrated.

But the question was about opinion.

Most people don't believe the melting point of gallium is worth considering.  It is not part of their daily lives and might easily be dismissed as pointless trivia.

For a small subset of individuals, the melting point of gallium is vital to their very survival on a daily basis.

this would seem to qualify as "a difference of opinion".

Please give me one example of something that has no variation in value?

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'
This statement clearly has different levels of practical value to different people at different times throughout history and certainly has different value to non-humans.
#384
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I assume you don't think I am stupid, but you think I need to be told some people don't know what gallium is and that some thermometers aren't accurate!

I'm not trying to make a huge point.   The word 'objective' has been used a certain way since the year dot, but you seem to insist on a non-standard meaning.   As far as I know, 'quanta' is the plural of 'quantum' and so 'quanta' means 'small amounts'!   I'll cut you slack that and let 'quanta and qualia' be related to 'quantitative' and 'qualitative', but there has to be a limit to idiosyncrasy!

We aren't even arguing about an important topic - certainly not 'atheism v theism'.  Whatever it is we are disputing (if anything), I'm bored with it - its not a big enough thing to worry over.



   

#385
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
As far as I know, 'quanta' is the plural of 'quantum' and so 'quanta' means 'small amounts'!   I'll cut you slack that and let 'quanta and qualia' be related to 'quantitative' and 'qualitative', but there has to be a limit to idiosyncrasy!
Oops, I guess I have to correct myself. Triangle is also a quantity and not just a a shape, because of the prefix 'tri' ergo quantity of three.

If we say sphere or circle or torus, then we have a metaphysical-1 shape without any quanta prefix.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Metaphysical-1 triangle shape is not a quantity but is verifiable via  human experience  of the existence of an occupied space that approximates the shape of triangle, that, is common to most every human on Earth either visually or tactile

Some people have not yet aquired  the metaphysical-1 ability  to making a distinction between definitions in the following set.

1} occupied space -- 3 primary kinds of occupied space

.......1a} Spirit-2, physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and aggregate thereof ex sub-atomics, atomics, molecules, planets, galzies etc,

.......1b} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, Gravity (  )  aka positive shaped (  )  -Space- geodesic,
 
........1c} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark Energy )(  aka negative shaped )( -Space- geodesic.

2} Spirit-1 --spirit-of-intent--, metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Space, God, Intellect, Dogs Toyotas etc

3} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds our eternally existent and finite,  occupied space Universe #1 above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reality { primary } is the set of truths and facts  existent in our observed experiences.

Dreams { 2ndary } are a semi-false reality that stem from  our observed experiences of truth and facts.

Sherlock Holmes and Unicorns exist as concepts ergo mind/intellect via and integral processing of brain and nervous system  we identify as consciousness.

The truth is an accurate approximation, or depiction of our observed experiences and/or any existence associated with our observed experiences even if not instrumentally quantised or mathematically quantified.

Facts are the quantisable observations of our experiences.



#386
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
The word 'objective' has been used a certain way since the year dot, but you seem to insist on a non-standard meaning. 
I'm quoting dictionaries for cripes sake!

Show me a logically coherent definition of "objective" and I'll be more than happy to join your bandwagon.

Quanta and qualia – Quanta is used here to mean quantum mechanical entities, numbers, and measurement in general. Qualia, means the ‘raw feels’ of sensation (i.e. the experience of the redness of red, as distinct from any information processing or biochemistry associated with producing that effect). [LINK]

aND as far as "We aren't even arguing about an important topic - certainly not 'atheism v theism'."...

The key distinction between Atheism and Theism - IS - standards of evidence that draw a bright line between what is properly REAL and what is IMAGINARY.

ATHEISM = REAL

THEISM = IMAGINARY

That's the only point I'm interested in discussing.  I see the term "objective" as an obvious logical mind-trap that supports and strengthens the Theist's confidence in their entrenched logical fallacies.

It encourages them to believe that they are "right", "objectively" even when they have no scientific or logical support for their position because "things can be true-without-evidence, like in your Neptune example".
#387
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The Ultimate Reality is God.

Therefore belief in God's existence is the only reasonable position.


Atheism is self defeating and patently idiotic.

#388
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Whether an atheist is clever or not, they direct their intellect towards wickedness which makes them fools.
#389
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,633
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Let's recap.

GOD = ULTIMATE REALITY

BIBLE =/= INFALLIBLE

INSIGHT comes from GNOSIS which comes from INTROSPECTION

Let me know if this is generally accurate.
#390
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Insight comes from God. Your part in that equation is a matter of cooperation.

Infallible is not really a good word to use especially when we are talking about texts, which are by nature interpreted. The Orthodox use and interpretation of scripture is inerrant.

That is what "Orthodox" means. Right believing.

The Ultimate Reality is God, without a doubt.