Do we worship definitions or objects?

The language of philosophy and theology seems to create both Being that does not exits as an object in reality, and Being that does exist as an object in reality. Theology and philosophy seem to define Being, or God as, (1) an idea and not an object of substance, or (2) an object that does exist in some kind of substance. I combine these two in theological materialism, with a Being-Object that usually does not exist until it is evolved to in the future.

I say objects are vastly more important than definitions of objects. Even the definition of Godhood, which supposedly is only in God's Mind, is less important than the Supreme Object Godhood.

Theology has more often said truth is an actual existing object (although “spiritual”), and philosophy has more often said truth is an idea (spiritual?), which in an odd way makes theology more like science in seeking the real existing object. But science too gets lost in mathematics, as philosophy and theology get lost in definitions. It is the task of philosophy, theology, and science to know the difference between these.

There is not materiality in every form of speech, some speech is idealistic, or a creation of what does not exist, but this does not mean that reality exists only in language.  Materiality evolves to supermateriality, and this closes the gap between the so-called spiritual and the material, as there is no duality here. The formerly spiritual exists as a supermaterial object, which can have a name and a definition, but the name or definition is not what we acknowledge or worship, it is the existing object, or the Supreme Object, which we acknowledge, or worship, and seek to evolve to become.