Can you tell the difference between these definitions?

I was not seeking a teacher I was seeking an interlocutor. This is a debate site not a discipleship site. I am here to present my arguments and to be exposed to the arguments of others. 

My default position is skepticism because I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible and I already accept perceived reality which is beyond my personal epistemology. That is already one assumption too many. Any assumptions that do not follow directly from that premise require further assumptions and assuming things is not a good pathway to truth.

The only real Truth is God.

Everything else is assumption.

So you are right to say that assuming things is not a good pathway to the truth. Knowledge is not a good pathway to the truth either.

There is no way to truth, truth is the way.

What you say, by your admission, is wrong. I have no reason to believe you.

Knowledge cannot be certain it is true but scientific method is actually the best method we have yet discovered for separating fact from falsehood (unless of course our perceived reality is an illusion in which case fact cannot be reliably separated from falsehood). The scientific method does not support any of your statements about reality although it does support the idea that there is a reality.

In fact nobody believes the same thing about their god as anyone else does, you are a prime example. You are the only one to have ever claimed that god is the ultimate reality. One in 7.5 billion.

"IF"  you speak the truth? Indeed. What you are repeating I will assume, comes from the bible, such unreliable text if ever there was. What your god, an old ancient god, teaches you is not love and and live in peace as you would like to believe. I am just grateful that the hebrews -  come - Israelis have grown out of the ways of this vicious and ancient, jealous god of old and no more do they stone people to death, no more do they commit genocide at his will or wage wars because of his Jealousy as they certainly did at one time. It is about time you followed suit and grew up yourself mopec.

The scientific method is a method for knowing.

To know God is to know an image of God.

But as you have said an image of god/reality is not god/reality. So what you are really saying unless I misunderstand you is that we can never know gid/reality. I'm sorry but that renders any claim about reality invalid. 

Epignosis exposes gnosis.

Could you perhaps explain that in greater detail?

If it is not The Ultimate Reality, it is ultimately unreal.

"The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step"

"Wherever you go there you are"

"If it is not The Ultimate Reality, it is ultimately unreal."

These statements don't actually mean anything or impart any information. While tautalogically true they do not add value to a discussion.

Allow me another quote. "Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish." 

"Before God we are equally wise and equally foolish."

That is an unsubstantiated claim. We do not know if it is true false or inapplicable. 

Speak for yourself.

A discordian mantra for you, since you like strife...

All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense.

Some statements are true some statements are false and some statements are about subjective values and are only true or false from a given point of view. The difficulty is in tellingbthe three kinds of statements apart and you have given no indication that you are in any way an authority on the subject. As a matter of fact the only statements you have made that do not still need to be demonstrated are to the effect of "only real things exist" or "reality is real". Statements of this nature are tautologies and so add nothing to our discussion. Equality is a subjective value and you have not demonstrated to me that god/reality can make subjective judgements or what those judgements would be or what they might be based on and so Einstein's quote (if it was not apocryphally attributed to him) is unsubstantiated. We do not know if it is true false or inapplicable. 

All this because I said that The Ultimate Reality is God.

So you agree that God exists, right?

Nothing more needs to be said. Work out these superstitions on your own. Contemplation will do you better than talking I think. 

It is because we do not know if reality is cognizant but you continue to make claims about reality that would require cognizance. The quote you provided may not be yours but in offering it I would consider it a claim on your part and so you have shouldered a burden if proof. Specifically this claim is that reality judges humans to all be equally wise and or foolish. Until you can demonstrate that reality makes judgements and specifically that one of those judgements is that humans are equally wise and or foolish this is an unsubstantiated claim.

I agree that it is probable that some noumanal reality exists. If you choose to call this noumena god then you may but that dies not change what that reality ends up being or tell us anything about what it indeed is.

why probable?

This is based on I think therefore I am. It is probable that my awareness implies some reality on some level even if all I am aware of is a convincing and persistent illusion. Honestly even that is not a certainty.

This constitutes a claim not evidence. Unless you can demonstrate that reality can prepare things, cares about anything, cares about righteousness (whatever that means to you), cares about iniquity (whatever that means to you), prepares things, has ways, has a face, can hide that face, consumes people, is our father, can work and that we are one such work (and that is only the claims about reality in your quote so you would have some claims to support about people too) I have no reason to accept this string if claims.

It would be an awful lot of work to demonstrate any of these things, because you don't really understand the language or concepts involved.

I'll help you with one.

What does it mean to be right?

"conforming to facts or truth"

So what is righteousness?

What is good?

" (1) : well-founded, cogent <good reasons> (2) : true <holds good for society at large>"

It's all about truth.

Because you don't get the spirit, the meanings are hidden from you. 

So there is a lot to work on. 

So you believe that in this context righteous is a synonym for factually correct? How does one rejoice and workers factually correct?

What does it mean for all our factual correctness to be as dirty rags?

None of this is true because as you've already informed us, as a human you are wrong.

Righteousness is conforming to the truth.

Everything about relationship with God centers around abiding in The Truth. It becomes sommething else when people are superstitious and turn to idolatries.

What does it mean for our righteousness to be as dirty rags? It means that we are always wrong, so self righteousness is a sin. Righteousness is in God and God alone. 

The Truth is Righteousness. God. Get it?

The entire diiscipline of Christianity is about abiding in the truth, and how we treat other people has a lot to do with that. If morality is not based on this, it is simply arbitrariness. Arbitrariness is the norm.